Do Not Read This If You're Sick of the Clinton Crap

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/17/98
to Michael R Weholt
Applause; well said.

Milt Stevens

unread,
Sep 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/17/98
to

Michael R Weholt wrote in message <6tr33t$mg_...@mrw.panix.com>...
>Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
>difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how most
>of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior, how he
>should be impeached, etc. (This reinforced my completely
>unsubstantiated, completely anecdotally-based belief that most of the
>internet is conservative. Or, the congressman was bullshitting. I
>dunno.)
>
I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high time we do
something about this situation and get rid of the lot of them.

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Sep 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/17/98
to

Milt Stevens wrote in message ...

>I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
>representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high time we do
>something about this situation and get rid of the lot of them.
>
>

Memo to self: Avoid drinking *anything* while reading one of Milt Stevens'
posts. So far, I have sprayed the screen every time! :)

Ali

Dave Locke

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Alison Hopkins cast forth electrons:

Over in alt.tv.homicide we call these "Windex moments."

--
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin/
Dutch, Injun, Irish, Limey, Scotch | "Proud to be a mammal"

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to Milt Stevens
Milt Stevens wrote:
>

> I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our elected
> representatives are the result of a sexual union.

Not Newt.
--

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver
Stone
(see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite Talk Show: Not Jerry Springer Turn-ons: Silk shirts
and BuckCote
------------------------------------------------------------

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Joel Rosenberg (jo...@winternet.com) wrote:
> Applause; well said.

<aol>Me too!</aol>

BTW, am I the only one who finds it deeply ironic that the
Republicans are blaming the release of all this damaging
information ona vast, left-wing conspiracy? :->

--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Mr. Chairman,

Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.

Sincerely,
James Wallace


I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
is a fool.

Rusty

Remove the 'xx''s to reply via emai...

Dave Locke

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Rusty Wallace cast forth electrons:

No, I think you're the fool.

As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."

I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into
believing that:

1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
great public expense.

2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.

I'd tell you who the *real* cocksuckers are in this whole matter, but
I wouldn't want to give anyone another case of the vapours.

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Rusty Wallace (xxjru...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
> thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
> is a fool.

...and the timing of the Lewinsky charges the *day* before the
State of the Union speech was coincidence? I suppose that the
fact that the House members are facing mid-term elections in a
few weeks makes the release of the Clinton videotape another
random coincidnce, right?

I love hearing from people who poo-pooed the "vast right-wing
conspiracy" theory whine about the "vast left-wing conspiracy"
that is to blame for every bad thing that happens to those nice
Republicans. I call it a "vast right-wing hypocrisy".

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Mr. Chairman,

: Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
: you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
: fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
: your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
: refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
: your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.

: Sincerely,
: James Wallace

Translation: "Please continue the double standard; it is irrelevant
to the issue of defeating the Democrats and becoming a one-party
system."

: I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who


: thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
: is a fool.

And anyone who thinks members of Congress aren't trying to intimidate
the White House is ... ?

-- LJM

Janice Gelb

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In article 1630...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, xxjru...@ix.netcom.com (Rusty Wallace) writes:
>Mr. Chairman,
>
>Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
>you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
>fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton. I applaud
>your handling of the serious issues before your committee and your
>refusal to be intimidated. Our President is a disgrace and I hope
>your actions will hasten the day when he is removed from office.
>
>Sincerely,
>James Wallace
>
>
>I might add for the benefit of you guys here in rasf - anyone who
>thinks the White House isn't trying to intimidate members of Congress
>is a fool.
>

Dear Ms. Lofgren:

As a northern California resident, I am writing to you as the
closest geographic representative on the House Judiciary
Committee to voice my opinion about the current matter of
the possible recommendation of impeachment of the President.

At no time has any investigation by the Kenneth Starr team
had anything to do with Mr. Clinton's activities as President.
The Whitewater issue occurred while he was Governor of Arkansas,
the Paula Jones issue also occurred while he was Governor of
Arkansas, and the Grand Jury testimony had to do with the
Paula Jones case.

Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
abuse of presidential power (like, say, approving the sale
of arms to Iran and using those funds to aid anti-regime
forces in Nicaragua), or lied about a similar activity, then
I think the House might have grounds for impeachment. As it
is, while Mr. Clinton's actions have been cowardly, stupid,
and immoral, they have to do with his private life and are
*not* grounds for impeachment.

Sincerely,

Janice Gelb


---
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html

"Politics is show business for ugly people" -- James Carville

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
dave...@bigfoot.com (Dave Locke) wrote:

>No, I think you're the fool.

Ha! You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

>
>As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
>chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
>rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."

Nice quote. Too bad it isn't relevant to the issues at hand.

>
>I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into
>believing that:
>
>1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
>Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
>great public expense.

Oh, we'll see alot more on these topics. Do you really believe
otherwise?

>
>2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
>Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
>money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
>president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.

Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: dave...@bigfoot.com (Dave Locke) wrote:

: >No, I think you're the fool.

: Ha! You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

: >
: >As H.L. Mencken noted: "Under democracy one party always devotes its
: >chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to
: >rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right..."

: Nice quote. Too bad it isn't relevant to the issues at hand.

Would you care to explain why you think it sin't relevant?

: >I would only hope that fewer of us were duped by outright scum into


: >believing that:
: >
: >1. Failing to find anything in Whitewater, or in MailGate, or in the
: >Chinese connection, it is okay to investigate a person's sex life at
: >great public expense.

: Oh, we'll see alot more on these topics. Do you really believe
: otherwise?

Yes.

: >2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad


: >Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
: >money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
: >president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.

: Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
: while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
: deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?

Why shouldn't it be, if it's okay at all? I haven't seen any
allegations that this was the case, however. This may be because I
was tired of the subject months ago.

-- LJM

Rev. Jihad Frenzy

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
If there is indeed a "vast, leftwing conspiracy", were I a closeted gay
Republican in the House or Senate, I would be VERY annoyed at the
leadership who opened the can of worms named Clinton.

And I would be in fear of my political life, too.

Although, I have to admit, having a front row seat at the self-immolation
of the Republicrats and Demopublicans is quite entertaining.

--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy

"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"

I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing

<A HREF="http://www.gis.net/~cht"/A>

Pierre Jelenc

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
> Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
> abuse of presidential power

Of course, had Janet Reno not done all she could to prevent the investi-
gation of money laundering and influence peddling, we might have by now a
report on the abuses of presidential power. One can't help but conclude
that the Lewinsky affair is a smokescreen thrown by the White House to
deflect the attention from the Chinese and Indonesians and Thai, not to
mention the FBI files, the looting of Vince Foster's office, and the
Travel Office prosecution.

Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
| The RAW Kinder CD "EP" is out!
The New York City Beer Guide | Home Office Records
http://www.nycbeer.org | http://www.web-ho.com

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
> Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
> abuse of presidential power (like, say, approving the sale
> of arms to Iran and using those funds to aid anti-regime
> forces in Nicaragua), or lied about a similar activity, then
> I think the House might have grounds for impeachment. As it
> is, while Mr. Clinton's actions have been cowardly, stupid,
> and immoral, they have to do with his private life and are
> *not* grounds for impeachment.


I agree, certainly.

But I don't think that only abuse of presidential power can be
properly impeachable. Hypothetically, assume that the President
was a serial murderer -- not of political opponents, just
ordinary folks.

That ought to, properly, be impeachable.

On the other hand, being a serial adulterer doesn't quite make
it.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
jan...@eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) wrote:

It's so nice to know that the Whitewater allegations, if true (yes,
dammit, I said *if*), are a matter of private life only that we
shouldn't trouble out little heads over. It's also nice to know that
it's OK for the President, *as President*, to have lied in the Paula
Jones case because it was a private matter.

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to

>Mr. Chairman,
>
>Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
>you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
>fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton.

Let's see:

Rep. Hyde had an affair with a married woman, who had children, over a
period of several years. His affair broke up her family. And even now,
he's still lying about it, claiming he ended it some years before, according
to her, he did.

President Clinton had an affair with a single woman, who had no children,
over a period of two or three years. No family was broken up as the result
of the affair. And he's owned up to it.

You're right: No one with an ounce of personal integrity can fail to note
the differences between him and Bill Clinton.

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
<xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
: while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
: deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?

Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?

Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
discussing something serious?

If so, what?

--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US

Janice Gelb

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In article 2786...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, xxjru...@ix.netcom.com (Rusty Wallace) writes:
>
>It's so nice to know that the Whitewater allegations, if true (yes,
>dammit, I said *if*), are a matter of private life only that we
>shouldn't trouble out little heads over. It's also nice to know that
>it's OK for the President, *as President*, to have lied in the Paula
>Jones case because it was a private matter.
>

If true, they are a concern of whatever agency would normally
investigate such a matter. I guarantee you that if any other
governor had been suspected of the Whitewater allegations,
there wouldn't have been a federal independent prosecutor
with unlimited subpoena powers. And I personally don't care
that the president lied in the Paula Jones case because it
was a case that never should have been brought in the first
place. (See my letter printed in Newsweek magazine at the
time for why -- it mentions many of the reasons the judge
in the case ended up citing when she threw the case out
of court.)

Daniel Blum

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to

> Let's see:

This would have been a really good year for the Democrats here to mount a
really good effort to defeat Hyde, but who knew? Generally they don't try
all that hard, because it's been a hopeless effort for a long time now.
I still think I will call up the local committee Monday and see what can be
done in the next six weeks or so.

I still recall that I thought moving here from Phil Crane's district was
an improvement, albeit a slight one. I'm not entirely sure it wasn't, even
now, but that says more about Phil Crane than anything else.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Friends, we have passed a night in hell; but now the sun is shining, the
birds are singing, and the radiant form of the dentist consoles the world."
____________________________________________________________________________

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
> <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
>
> : Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
> : while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
> : deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
>
> Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
> consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?
>
> Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
> discussing something serious?
>
> If so, what?
>

Yes, there is something wrong with it. I certainly would hope
that the President would have an active and satisfying sex life
-- although I'd prefer more discretion than Bill Clinton has
demonstrated if that's going to include extra-marital stuff.

But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy
and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
-- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
of having sex while driving.

If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're
having sex, you're doing it wrong.

Rich Horton

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
On 18 Sep 1998 18:20:32 GMT, jan...@eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) wrote:

>At no time has any investigation by the Kenneth Starr team
>had anything to do with Mr. Clinton's activities as President.

It's easy enought to criticize Starr. It seems silly to get it so
wrong. Starr is also investigating Travelgate and Filegate, and
previously investigated Vince Foster's suicide. All these
investigations concerned Mr. Clinton's activities while President.

(And by the way, Starr has never investigated "The China Connection"
or anything to do with campaign finance. (Except to the extent some
theorized Whitewater may have had to do with financing his
gubernatorial campaigns.) In fact, as far as I know, those who have
investigate the Campaign Finance issues in the Justice Department and
the FBI have strongly urged that this is a case which really actually
does deserve an Independent Counsel investigation.) (This paragraph is
a non sequitor to Janice' response: sorry!)

--
Rich Horton | rrho...@concentric.net
"I am an excellent cook, and anyway when I am fifty I will probably
prefer the breakfast to the girl anyway." - W. M. Spackman

Daniel Blum

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> > In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
> > <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > [. . .]
> >
> > : Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
> > : while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
> > : deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
> >
> > Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
> > consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?
> >
> > Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
> > discussing something serious?
> >
> > If so, what?
> >

> Yes, there is something wrong with it. I certainly would hope
> that the President would have an active and satisfying sex life
> -- although I'd prefer more discretion than Bill Clinton has
> demonstrated if that's going to include extra-marital stuff.

> But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy
> and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
> to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
> -- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
> of having sex while driving.

> If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're
> having sex, you're doing it wrong.

I agree with this, but on the other hand, if he did this it's just
something dumb he did, not something worth investigating and considering
impeaching him for. (I know, you didn't say or imply that it was, this
is in response to Mr. Wallace up there.)

I mean, maybe this caused him to make a really stupid remark on a major
policy issue. If that were an impeachable offense, Reagan would have
been out of office in about two weeks (and a good thing too).

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
In <3602F2FB...@winternet.com>
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: But when he's on the phone discussing important matters of policy


: and/or state, I'd really rather he be giving his full attention
: to the matters of policy and/or state. It's the same principle
: -- although with less dramatic obvious possible consequences --
: of having sex while driving.

Apparently you have greater faith than I that every conversation with
every rinky-dink Congressional representative is of critical importance to
the state of the nation than I do.

: If you can give your full attention to anything else while you're


: having sex, you're doing it wrong.

There are many ways of having sex, and a prescription for one way to
engage at one time in one act is not necessarily applicable to another.

And I don't see a need to give "your full attention" to every phone call a
President has to make. A lot of it is just *gas*, you know.

I'm certainly not prepared to criticize someone for having sex The Wrong
Way because they received oral sex while engaging in a phone call. I'm
not prepared to criticize someone who isn't my partner for having sex The
Wrong Way, so long as it is consensual, period.

Tom Galloway

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
In article <6tukum$5ie$1...@Venus.mcs.net>, Daniel Blum <to...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>This would have been a really good year for the Democrats here to mount a
>really good effort to defeat Hyde, but who knew? Generally they don't try
>all that hard, because it's been a hopeless effort for a long time now.

I'm trying to recall; was it Hyde that Betty Hull (aka Fred Pohl's wife)
ran against in '96?

tyg t...@netcom.com

Avram Grumer

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
In article <36028d8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, jru...@ix.netcom.com
(Rusty Wallace) wrote:

> Mr. Chairman,

Does he reads Usenet at all, much less rass-eff?

--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/

Information wants to be incorrectly formatted.

Daniel Blum

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to

I think it was Phil Crane, but I won't swear to it. Palatine (where the
Pohls live) certainly seems as if it should be in Crane's district.

Ray Radlein

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
> difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how
> most of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior,
> how he should be impeached, etc.

Ah yes. Of course. The Lurkers, it seems, Support Him in E-Mail.


- Ray R.


--
*********************************************************************
"To be flamed, be inflamatory." -- Ovoid, "Arse Usenetica"

Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************


Steve Brinich

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Michael R Weholt wrote:

> But for you and your side to imply, without a shred of proof, that the
> White House is behind these revelations concerning your sexual
> misadventures is absolutely reprehensible.

You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
perfectly logical.

--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example

Steve Brinich

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Milt Stevens wrote:

> I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of our
> elected representatives are the result of a sexual union. It's high
> time we do something about this situation and get rid of the lot
> of them.

Are you *sure* that Jesse Helms wasn't created in a lab?

Steve Brinich

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Dave Locke wrote:

> 2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
> Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
> money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
> president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.

Do you think the rules should be changed so that it's OK in general for
the head honcho of an organization to get blowjobs from someone below him
in the organizational chain of command during office hours?

Steve Brinich

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Janice Gelb wrote:

> Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
> abuse of presidential power (like, say

...illegally obtaining hundreds of his political opponents' FBI
files....

Steve Brinich

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to
Rich Horton wrote:

> It's easy enought to criticize Starr.

Well, yes, because Starr has done a lot of eminently criticizable things
(e.g. the bookstore subpoenas, which were an outrageous fishing expedition
-- it the purpose of this inquiry were as advertised, a *narrowly*
directed inquiry concerning the *specific* book at issue would have
sufficed).
That doesn't change the fact that the portion of the evidence which was
legitimately gathered is highly damaging to Clinton.

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/19/98
to Gary Farber
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> In <360449E1...@access.digex.net>
> Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:

> : Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> :> But for you and your side to imply, without a shred of proof, that the
> :> White House is behind these revelations concerning your sexual
> :> misadventures is absolutely reprehensible.
>
> : You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
> : motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
> : perfectly logical.
>
> I always thought that shreds of proof are a nice thing to have when making
> accusations.


Particularly, in this case, where there's a clear provenance for
the Hyde story; a short trail that leads quite directly to the
husband of the woman who Hyde had a long affair with.

I'm hoping that the Republicans will take the point -- it isn't
Clinton White House that they have to worry about, but the
climate they've created and tried to benefit from, in which
private embarrassing matters become public for crass political
advantage.

As I understand it, George W. Bush has taken the point, and is
probably going to reconsider running for President.

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In <360449E1...@access.digex.net>
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
: Michael R Weholt wrote:

:> But for you and your side to imply, without a shred of proof, that the
:> White House is behind these revelations concerning your sexual
:> misadventures is absolutely reprehensible.

: You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
: motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
: perfectly logical.

I always thought that shreds of proof are a nice thing to have when making
accusations.

--

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In <36044AB0...@access.digex.net>
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
: Dave Locke wrote:

:> 2. A blowjob between consensual adults is a bigger indicator of Bad
:> Things than the personal sins of the people who are wasting *our*
:> money in trying to find something, *anything* about a sitting
:> president which might cause someone, somewhere, to get the vapours.

: Do you think the rules should be changed so that it's OK in general for
: the head honcho of an organization to get blowjobs from someone below him
: in the organizational chain of command during office hours?

What "rule," specifically, are you referring to?

Most of the blowjobs, incidentally, took place in the evening, and I
believe they all took place in the building that the President lives in.
Not that I see any reason why the time or place are the least relevant to
anything. Is Monica Lewinsky alleging sexual harrassment by President
Clinton? Do you know something we don't?

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In <6u1l5h$1i8...@mrw.panix.com>
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: If the FBI has files on all these people, and those files contain
: evidence of things that can be used against them, then what the fuck
: are we pissed off at whoever "illegally obtained them" for? These were
: files accumulated over a number of administrations, am I right? Why
: the hell isn't the outrage aimed at the very *existence* of these
: files. Instead, we focus on the files being "illegally obtained".

: Jesus, America, get a grip already.

Er, I'd truly really love to agree with this, but I can't.

The files in question are not random investigations of people for having
unauthorized opinions or being enemies of the state or for other
unjustified reasons. They are files on the investigations into candidates
for positions in government.

The FBI investigates the background of people who are invited to take
sensitive government positions. You are asked to sign a form authorizing
this before it happens.

It is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable to look into the background of
people taking sensitive government positions, to see if they have
committed crimes, or are keeping secrets which could render them subject
to blackmail. People in sensitive government positions have a great deal
of power over the rest of us and such investigations often uncover
problems which result in a position not being offered. There are, in
fact, spies, and there are, in fact, unrevealed criminals who are offered
these jobs. Yet they are not investigated without specifically
authorizing these investigations.

I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that the FBI has committed
many abuses does not mean that everything the FBI does is ipso facto an
abuse.

What I might come closer to agreeing with is an objection to these files
being kept after a person has been offered the job. But. But in some
cases, these files become again relevant after a subsequent scandal. For
example, the recent Ambassador who was not revealed in his FBI background
check to have grossly lied about his military record: when the scandal
*did* emerge, after he was buried in Arlington, it would have been
difficult to open the investigation again without having held onto his
file, and if it had been destroyed, it would have been impossible to know
what had and hadn't been investigated and to find out how the initial
investigation failed.

There are fair reasons to hold onto such files so long as the secrecy of
them is maintained.

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In <36048B35...@winternet.com> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: Particularly, in this case, where there's a clear provenance for


: the Hyde story; a short trail that leads quite directly to the
: husband of the woman who Hyde had a long affair with.

Indeed.

: I'm hoping that the Republicans will take the point -- it isn't


: Clinton White House that they have to worry about, but the
: climate they've created and tried to benefit from, in which
: private embarrassing matters become public for crass political
: advantage.

They don't seem inclined to, in general, as yet, to put it mildly.

: As I understand it, George W. Bush has taken the point, and is


: probably going to reconsider running for President.

I gather he was quite a carouser, by his own words, before he quit
drinking.

There were, of course, stories asserting that his father had an affair
with a named staffer (I could look up her name, but won't bother), though
I have no idea whether these allegations are true or not. Nor do I
particularly care, save under the "treat everyone the same to be fair"
doctrine.

If we go ahead with an impeachment inquiry, I'd like to see everyone in
Congress deposed, under oath, in excruciating detail, about every aspect
of their sex lives and any violations of the marital oath. And then
everyone who has violated their marital oath should have their depositions
printed, and the videotapes of the deposition shown on national
television, over and over again.

Just, you know, to be fair. Since, you know, character is an issue.

[. . . .]

Ray Radlein

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> Milt Stevens wrote:
>
> > I believe that further investigation will reveal that most of
> > our elected representatives are the result of a sexual union.
> > It's high time we do something about this situation and get rid
> > of the lot of them.
>
> Are you *sure* that Jesse Helms wasn't created in a lab?

Christ, no. He was a biblical plague that was considered entirely too
frightening to make it into The Big Book. Something involving burning
toads, I think.

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> Janice Gelb wrote:
>
> > Had Mr. Clinton done something *as president* that was an
> > abuse of presidential power (like, say
>
> ...illegally obtaining hundreds of his political opponents' FBI
> files....

Yes, we've all noticed how _prominently_ that's featured in the Starr
Report.

Filegate was, I've always thought, the most serious set of allegations
against Clinton. Clinton claimed they were requested due to a
screw-up: use of an old list by someone lower-down. That didn't seem
like the most likely explanation; it's easier to believe that they
were deliberately requested for the obvious purpose. It worried me. I
couldn't have gone on supporting Clinton if that were the case. And an
investigation was begun.

And yet, somehow, we haven't heard anything about that for quite a
while, not even as much as we've heard about Whitewater. And in late
Januauary, we were told that the accusations concerning Monica
Lewinsky were "the most serious charges yet". We're solemnly assured
that this is grounds for impeachment. All by itself. And the Starr
Report says nothing whatsoever about Filegate; we're told that the
information on _that_ will be coming later, at some undetermined point
in the future.

It might almost make a person think that Starr's investigation has
turned up rather more evidence supporting Clinton's claim of an
innocent mistake than the allegations of deliberate nefarious
intentions.

Lis Carey

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> > But for you and your side to imply, without a shred of proof, that the
> > White House is behind these revelations concerning your sexual
> > misadventures is absolutely reprehensible.
>
> You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
> motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
> perfectly logical.

So, what about the friend of the ex-husband, who's been writing to
various media outlets since June? This morning on NPR, a reporter--I
think it was Nina Totenberg, but I came in after she'd started
talking--said that she'd gotten one of his letters, that she'd filed
it and still had it, but had ignored it as Not Newsworthy. She said
she'd spoken to other reporters and media people who'd also been
contacted by this guy. This guy was interviewed by Salon, Salon says
he was their source, he says he was Salon's source, there seems to me
to be no _obvious_ reason for disbelieving everyone who actually knows
how the story got to Salon, and concluding the the White House is the
"obvious" source of the story.

Lis Carey

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
> difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how most
> of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior, how he
> should be impeached, etc. (This reinforced my completely
> unsubstantiated, completely anecdotally-based belief that most of the
> internet is conservative. Or, the congressman was bullshitting. I
> dunno.)
>
> Anyway, I decided to write my own email which I include below in the
> hope others would be prompted to write their own.

ooo. Bravo.

The funny thing is that Henry Hyde, with whom I dealt on numerous
occasions in the past (generally on stories about O'Hare Airport and
Lyndon LaRouche), has been one of those conservative legislators of
which I've said "I don't believe in what he says, but I'd go to a ball
game with him." I've also seen him work with people far to his left on
occasions (Barbara Boxer, of all people, on something having to do with
children [but not the internet, I don't think]}. Generally a decent man
with surprising mental and philisophical flexibility, given the end of
the rope on which he hangs.

That's one of the reasons I was so disappointed that he implied the
intimidation crap. I was also disappointed to see my brethren in the
live (or at least breathing) media inhale the same hallucinogenic drug
Henry did, obviously, since they exhibited a disheartening willingness
to believe what he said.

Anyway. oooo. Bravo.
--
Kathy R.

---------------------------

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion
galaxies, you will not find another.
-- Carl Sagan

Kevin J. Maroney

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:18:41 -0400, Steve Brinich
<ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:

> You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
>motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
>perfectly logical.

And, like many perfectly logical things, completely unsupported by the
facts.

The husband of the woman with whom Hyde had his years-long affair
broke the story on Hyde's affair back in June. For some reason, it
took four months for any publication to think it worth bringing to the
attention of the public. Oh, wait, that reason might have something to
do with Hyde condemning adultery as a "moral outrage".

Similarly, Dan Burton's exceptional non-marital sexual history was
well known for years among those who covered the Indiana legislature,
but was not considered newsworthy until Burton publically denounced
Clinton as a "scumbag". One of those reporters decided, basically,
that it takes one to fit one, and published what he knew.

Now, perhaps the White House does have dirt on every member of
Congress, secret files which would make J. Edgar blanch, but there's
no evidence so far that they have even had to approach reporters
themselves; occasionally, reporters are both willing and capable to
uncover hypocritical malfeasance, which is, after all, part of their
vocation.

I realize that the concept that a reporter might generate an article
which is something other than a reworded press release is an
astounding one in this day and age, but still. Give the press a
*little* credit; after all, that's about as much as they deserve.


Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.

Arthur Hlavaty

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Kevin J. Maroney (kmar...@crossover.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:18:41 -0400, Steve Brinich
: <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:

: > You overstep a bit here. Given that the White House has 1)an obvious
: >motive and 2)a pile of illegally obtained FBI files, the inference is
: >perfectly logical.

: And, like many perfectly logical things, completely unsupported by the
: facts.

: The husband of the woman with whom Hyde had his years-long affair
: broke the story on Hyde's affair back in June. For some reason, it
: took four months for any publication to think it worth bringing to the
: attention of the public. Oh, wait, that reason might have something to
: do with Hyde condemning adultery as a "moral outrage".

The conservatives, who tell us that extramarital sex _always_ harms
others, seem incapable of believing that it happened in this case. Nah,
must have been a White House plot.


: Similarly, Dan Burton's exceptional non-marital sexual history was


: well known for years among those who covered the Indiana legislature,
: but was not considered newsworthy until Burton publically denounced
: Clinton as a "scumbag". One of those reporters decided, basically,
: that it takes one to fit one, and published what he knew.

In a just world, Burton would noiw be trying to explain why his head
suddenly sported a nipple tip.

--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

> Is Monica Lewinsky alleging sexual harrassment by President
>Clinton? Do you know something we don't?

Would it matter to you if she did? Do you think she might have been?
If so, does it really matter that she hasn't pressed the claim thus
far? How far are gonna go, Gary?

Rusty
Remove the 'xx''s to reply via emai...

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

>In <3602a87d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Rusty Wallace
><xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: Ah, yes 'just sex' and 'private life'! And when the blowjob happens
>: while the President is on the phone with a senator discussing troop
>: deployments to Bosnia? Is that still OK?
>
>Sure. Sounds like an excellent way to relax, to me, if you're having
>consensual sex. Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob, Rusty?

Nope. You would like to be able to paint me as some crazed fundy who
thinks all sex is bad sex, wouldn't you? Sorry to disappoint. I'll
be the last one to condemn blowjobs. Difference is I wont be on the
*job* when it happens.

>
>Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
>discussing something serious?

Yes, especially if one happens to be the President.

But thanks for helping the clarify the viewpoint held by some ardent
Clinton supporters.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Good try, pooky. Now let's see here - where did Mr. Hyde lie about
any of this under oath? And how long ago did this happen? And what
position did Mr Hyde hold at the time?

Try again.

Rusty


p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:

>In <36028d8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> xxjru...@ix.netcom.com (Rusty Wallace) writes:
>
>>Mr. Chairman,
>>
>>Please continue your work without regard for these chilling attacks on
>>you and your fellows. No one with an ounce of personal integrity can
>>fail to note the differences between you and Bill Clinton.
>
>Let's see:
>
>Rep. Hyde had an affair with a married woman, who had children, over a
>period of several years. His affair broke up her family. And even now,
>he's still lying about it, claiming he ended it some years before, according
>to her, he did.
>
>President Clinton had an affair with a single woman, who had no children,
>over a period of two or three years. No family was broken up as the result
>of the affair. And he's owned up to it.
>
>You're right: No one with an ounce of personal integrity can fail to note
>the differences between him and Bill Clinton.
>
>--
>Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:

>In article <36028d8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, jru...@ix.netcom.com
>(Rusty Wallace) wrote:
>
>> Mr. Chairman,
>
>Does he reads Usenet at all, much less rass-eff?

Just cc'ing for your special benefit. Original went to the same
places as Mr Weholt's.

Rusty

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:

>Michael R Weholt wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday I heard some Republican Congressman talking about the
>> difference email was making in this whole mess. He mentioned how
>> most of the email was expressing outrage over Clinton's behavior,
>> how he should be impeached, etc.
>

>Ah yes. Of course. The Lurkers, it seems, Support Him in E-Mail.

Dianne Feinstein said the same thing - 1,000's of emails
overwealmingly expressing outrage at the President.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Not really replying to Steve so much as everyone who responded.

If you doubt the 'intimidation' theory go check out some Salon
backissues. Look for the story from August (I believe) discussing the
White House's proposed 'scorched earth policy'. Then get back to us
with your thoughts.

I see, also, that everyone is conveniently ignoring the various bits
of information out there that have the White House trying to peddle
the Hyde story and telling the guy with the story to try Salon.

And who's to say the White House didn't give this guy a nudge to go
public? What with all those FBI files taking their tour through the
White House - how can we rule it out?

It is Bill Clinton who has perfected the art of the smear in the 90's.
I find it highly amusing that what goes around does indeed come
around.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
jan...@eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) wrote:

>In article 2786...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, xxjru...@ix.netcom.com (Rusty Wallace) writes:
>>
>>It's so nice to know that the Whitewater allegations, if true (yes,
>>dammit, I said *if*), are a matter of private life only that we
>>shouldn't trouble out little heads over. It's also nice to know that
>>it's OK for the President, *as President*, to have lied in the Paula
>>Jones case because it was a private matter.
>>
>
>If true, they are a concern of whatever agency would normally
>investigate such a matter. I guarantee you that if any other
>governor had been suspected of the Whitewater allegations,
>there wouldn't have been a federal independent prosecutor
>with unlimited subpoena powers.

See, the thing of it is, we have the IC laws for just this
circumstance. A President suspected of wrongdoing cannot be
investigated by the DOJ. Wont work. The IC creates an investigative
authority that is outside the normal political process. Note that
Starr is not a loose cannon. His actions are reviewed by a three
judge panel and Janet Reno. They have supported each expansion of his
investigation. It is Bill Clinton who has politicized this process
with a systematic strategy of obstructing the Starr investigation and
trying to destroy the integrity of the IC with a viscious media
campaign. The irony is that if Clinton had just left Starr alone he
would probably have finished his work long ago - possibly with nothing
more to show for it than Walsh had - and certainly with no Monica
Lewinsky.


>And I personally don't care
>that the president lied in the Paula Jones ...<snip>

Good call, Janice. Let's just let each individual decide when a
felony is a felony. What the heck - who needs laws. Right?

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
In <360661d7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

[. . .]

:>Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
:>discussing something serious?

: Yes, especially if one happens to be the President.

: But thanks for helping the clarify the viewpoint held by some ardent
: Clinton supporters.

De nada. Is there also something wrong with getting a backrub while on
the phone? Looking at a sexy picture? Using a foot massager? Holding
hands? Stroking someone's skin? Doodling? Playing tic-tac-toe?
Twiddling fingers?

Should the First Lady be allowed in the room when the President is on the
phone? Or is she allowed to touch him? If so, how much?

Should these all be fireable offenses? Or just blowjobs? And it matters
not what the phone call is?

Do you have a set of guidelines for this, or what?

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
In <360662ff...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

:> Is Monica Lewinsky alleging sexual harrassment by President


:> Clinton? Do you know something we don't?

: Would it matter to you if she did?

Yes.

: Do you think she might have been?

No. She'd have to change her story in almost every detail to make that
claim, and that would now be, um, perjury.

: If so, does it really matter that she hasn't pressed the claim thus
: far?

Yes, very much so. It would grossly affect her credibility, wouldn't it?

So, *are* you saying that she was sexually harassed, but you're the only
one who knows about it, or what?

: How far are gonna go, Gary?

Hmm?

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

: But thanks for helping the clarify the viewpoint held by some ardent
: Clinton supporters.

I'm not an ardent Clinton support, and my viewpoint is pretty much
the same as Gary's. As a matter of fact, I'm reasonably certain
-Gary- isn't an ardent Clinton supporter.

-- LJM

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to

I think the only ardent Clinton supporters are James Carville and
Hillary -- and I wouldn't bet a whole lot on Hillary.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.winternet.com/~joelr
Latest novel: The Silver Stone

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA
----------------------------------------------------------------

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

>In <360661d7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>

>Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>

>[. . .]
>
>:>Is there something wrong with getting a blowjob while on the phone, or
>:>discussing something serious?
>
>: Yes, especially if one happens to be the President.
>

>: But thanks for helping the clarify the viewpoint held by some ardent
>: Clinton supporters.
>

>De nada. Is there also something wrong with getting a backrub while on
>the phone? Looking at a sexy picture? Using a foot massager? Holding
>hands? Stroking someone's skin? Doodling? Playing tic-tac-toe?
>Twiddling fingers?
>Should the First Lady be allowed in the room when the President is on the
>phone? Or is she allowed to touch him? If so, how much?

Maybe. Maybe. Probably not. Probably not. Maybe. Probably not. Maybe.
Probably not. Don't be a doofus. Ditto. Depends. Happy?

>
>Should these all be fireable offenses? Or just blowjobs? And it matters
>not what the phone call is?

You're really hung up on those blowjobs, huh? Can we stipulate
blowjob=sex and get on it? Or shall we check with Mr Clinton first to
make sure we aren't jumping to an unreasonable conclusion?

Let's take it from the other direction. Is it OK for the President to
be actively having intercourse while at the same time conducting the
business of the country on the phone? How about in a Cabinet meeting?
How about while giving the State of the Union? No? Why not?

>
>Do you have a set of guidelines for this, or what?

I think it behooves the President to conduct his office with
appropriate dignity and respect for the people he serves. Blowjobs
from a bimbo in the White House would be right out. Said blowjobs
while on the phone with a US Senator discussing the deployment of
Americans into harm's way would be *way* over the line. That alone is
enough to warrant impeachment, IMO. The rest is just icing on the
cake.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:

>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

>: But thanks for helping the clarify the viewpoint held by some ardent
>: Clinton supporters.
>

>I'm not an ardent Clinton support, and my viewpoint is pretty much
>the same as Gary's. As a matter of fact, I'm reasonably certain
>-Gary- isn't an ardent Clinton supporter.

My apologies if I am mischaracterizing anyone's position. Perhaps
rather than 'Clinton supporters' I should say 'those who don't think
this mess merits Clinton's removal from office'.

Rusty Wallace

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

>In <360662ff...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>

>Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>

>:> Is Monica Lewinsky alleging sexual harrassment by President
>:> Clinton? Do you know something we don't?
>
>: Would it matter to you if she did?
>
>Yes.

Why? How would that change the essence of the matter in your eyes?

>
>: If so, does it really matter that she hasn't pressed the claim thus
>: far?
>
>Yes, very much so. It would grossly affect her credibility, wouldn't it?
>
>So, *are* you saying that she was sexually harassed, but you're the only
>one who knows about it, or what?

No. I wouldn't call it SH either. Lots of other things - but not SH.

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to

Or, as it's otherwise known "at least 2/3rds of the American
public."

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
Rusty Wallace wrote:

>
> I think it behooves the President to conduct his office with
> appropriate dignity and respect for the people he serves.

Okay, sure.

> Blowjobs
> from a bimbo in the White House would be right out.

Why? Is the private sexual activity (or lack thereof) of a
President somehow reflective on the dignity of his office? Is
there any particularly dignified way to have sex, for that
matter?


> Said blowjobs
> while on the phone with a US Senator discussing the deployment of
> Americans into harm's way would be *way* over the line.

I agree, sort of, but the dignity of the office would hardly be
relevant as long as he's, err, maintaining a certain amount of
control. I think it's bad judgment, but not a horrible one.

> That alone is
> enough to warrant impeachment, IMO.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I hardly
think that was what the founders had in mind -- or should have
had in mind -- when they talked about "high crimes and
misdemeanors".

(BTW, as long as we're talking about losing one's job over oral
sex, should Newt be kicked out of the House for the, err,
lewinskying he got from one of his female aides? How about Dan
"Party Hound" Burton and his endless tail-chasing? Henry Hyde?
And what's Dan Quayle looking so bleary-eyed about these days?)

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
In <360697e4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
[. . .]
:>De nada. Is there also something wrong with getting a backrub while on

:>the phone? Looking at a sexy picture? Using a foot massager? Holding
:>hands? Stroking someone's skin? Doodling? Playing tic-tac-toe?
:>Twiddling fingers?
:>Should the First Lady be allowed in the room when the President is on the
:>phone? Or is she allowed to touch him? If so, how much?

: Maybe. Maybe. Probably not. Probably not. Maybe. Probably not. Maybe.
: Probably not. Don't be a doofus. Ditto. Depends. Happy?

I infer from your answers that it's "wrong" to be sexually aroused while
on the phone.

:>Should these all be fireable offenses? Or just blowjobs? And it matters


:>not what the phone call is?

: You're really hung up on those blowjobs, huh? Can we stipulate
: blowjob=sex and get on it?

You're the one who brought them up, and feel they are "wrong," to the
point of being impeachable offenses, not me.

: Or shall we check with Mr Clinton first to


: make sure we aren't jumping to an unreasonable conclusion?

I don't follow what you mean by that.

: Let's take it from the other direction. Is it OK for the President to


: be actively having intercourse while at the same time conducting the
: business of the country on the phone? How about in a Cabinet meeting?
: How about while giving the State of the Union? No? Why not?

I don't care what the President or anyone else does while they're on the
phone, so long as they are able to conduct their duties properly. If we
could have Cabinet meetings that were vast orgies, and it would aid
business being taken care of in good fashion, I couldn't care less.
Perhaps it might make for more amity in government. Perhaps not. The
issue for me is not that people are having sex. Why are you so "hung up"
on it?

:>Do you have a set of guidelines for this, or what?

: I think it behooves the President to conduct his office with
: appropriate dignity and respect for the people he serves. Blowjobs


: from a bimbo in the White House would be right out.

Where would it be acceptable? Since we're not discussing the issue of
whether the President lied to his wife or not (and so far as I know, we
don't know whether he did or did not), and you're focusing on what sex
acts, with whom, and where, as the issues that define "wrong," what type
of person would the President having sex with be acceptable to you? An
intellectual? Would the President having sex, in the White House, or
someplace else, with the head of the Council of Economic Advisors be okay,
then?

Are you aware that every married President has, in fact, had sex in the
White House? I expect that some of them even received "blowjobs."

You seem to have a curious sense of priorities as to what is a vital issue
and what is "wrong."

: Said blowjobs


: while on the phone with a US Senator discussing the deployment of

: Americans into harm's way would be *way* over the line. That alone is


: enough to warrant impeachment, IMO.

Really. How, exactly, is it a "high crime and misdeameanor"? (Laying
aside the minor fact that this didn't happen.)

You seem to also be convinced that someone can't be sexually aroused, and
carry on a conversation. I disagree, but even if I accepted your premise,
I can't see how being sexually aroused during conversation is an
impeachable offense.

Of course, if it is, a significant percentage of Congress should be
impeached. And a large percentage of politicians all over the country
should be removed from office.

Are you sure that Henry Hyde has not engaged in this very activity?

: The rest is just icing on the cake.

The main issue is "having blowjobs on the phone" during discussions with
another politician, and "the rest is just icing on the cake." Hokay. So
much for the views of an ardent non-supporter of Clinton.

Gary Farber

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98
to
In <36069dcf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
:>In <360662ff...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
:>Rusty Wallace <xxjru...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
:>
:>:> Is Monica Lewinsky alleging sexual harrassment by President

:>:> Clinton? Do you know something we don't?
:>
:>: Would it matter to you if she did?
:>
:>Yes.

: Why? How would that change the essence of the matter in your eyes?

Note there there is an endless list of things I didn't say it would change
in my eyes. I didn't say it would be an impeachable offense. I didn't
say that I thought it would necessarily warrant removal from office or
resignation. Etc.

But it would be a charge of a possible crime that has not been alleged,
and it would be a charge of a possible offense that has not been alleged.
That would certainly be worth taking note of. One would want to know the
specifics of the case, and would want to evalute their seriousness.

I'm not sure what you have in mind as "the essense of the matter."

All things, of course, have degrees of wrongness to them. Sexual
harrassment has many levels. Sexual harrassment, at any level, is also a
Bad Thing, but it is not, say, as Bad A Thing as murder. On the other
hand, we reserve the term to describe something worse than being rude.

:>: If so, does it really matter that she hasn't pressed the claim thus


:>: far?
:>
:>Yes, very much so. It would grossly affect her credibility, wouldn't it?
:>
:>So, *are* you saying that she was sexually harassed, but you're the only
:>one who knows about it, or what?

: No. I wouldn't call it SH either. Lots of other things - but not SH.

I'm not clear why we're discussing this, then, but fine.

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Sep 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/21/98