In case you are living in a cave somewhere…
Robert Ray. Robert Ray. Robert Ray. What does this sound like? A broken fucking record. And we are going to be listening to one big 'ol broken record if Ray has his way. Right, wrong, or indifferent, aren’t we all just a little bit tired of this fecal paste?
To be perfectly honest, I am too disgusted to rant. Just read the AP and decide for yourself.
MR
[Edited by TubaDiva on 08-17-2000 at 07:45 PM]
I if you are gonna copy an enitre AP Wire report you should do just that, and copy the whole thing. Here’s the portion you missed.
Or maybe since this is copyrighted you should have simply provied a link rather than illegally republishing it.
I’m sure Alphagene or Lynn will be along shortly to delete the major portion of your post. You’ll probably get a sharp whack on the nose with a newspaper, too. I’d do it right now, but this ain’t my forum.
So, I guess your argument is that if you are tired of hearing about it, then people should get away with criminal activity.
Though it isn’t your forum, UncleBeer. you still couldn’t restrain yourself from scolding me? If only you weren’t completely right.
Since the above will certainly be deleted, here is a link to an equally informative article.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/lewinsky000817.html
Revtim
Are you really as much of a brainfart as the above would indicate? Everyone was sick and tired of the OJ trial, but the general disgust generated against it certainly didn’t exonerate him. The independent counsel is the crime, not Slick Willy’s hummer.
MR
Actually Maeglin, if you were to actually read the article you both copied and referenced, you might have noticed that the crime in question is not a felonious hummer, but perjury and obstruction of justice.
And what the Christ does the OJ trial have to do with it? Yes, public disgust didn’t exonerate him. I don’t think public disgust SHOULD exonerate anybody. That was the point of my original post in this thread.
Yes, I am tired of the whole deal. That’s why I simply choose not to read articles on it. But I don’t feel Clinton should be able to commit perjury with impunity simply because I’m tired of hearing about the issue.
If they want to pursue Clinton after he leaves office, that is Ray’s perogative. However, a grand jury has been sitting for five weeks and they just “happen” to leak tentative news about it on the culminating day of the Democratic convention?
I am not enough of a conspiracy theorist to believe that Dubya, his handlers, or the GOP hierarchy was “behind” this, but I would say that Ray and his boys are not exactly paragons of ethical virtue. (Of course, Starr and his secret deals with the Jones lawyers never struck me as particularly ethical, either.)
about Bill’s hummers. Lewinsky, Lewinsky, Lewinsky. More, More, More. Everytime the Republi-cans point and wag their finger at slick Willy, the Demo-crats pick up more seats in the House and Senate. Yee-Hah. Come on boys, bring it on. Fat chicks, buttugly beaknose honker chicks from ArKansas, haing to live with Hillary, Saint Bill wins a free ticket to heaven for mercyfucking these bimbos for his entire adult life.
^_____________^______________^
Does anybody have any fucking clue what this person is talking about?
–Tim
Maeglin, Uncle Beer is absolutely correct.
Don’t compound your mistake with more mistakes. Let me quote to you from the registration agreement:
Also:
Looks like you’re in the wrong all the way around here. Straighten up and fly right. (No pun intended.)
When providing cites for argument, hyperlinks are always preferable. You can also BRIEFLY quote the relevant portions of copyrighted material, we allow that.
As our own content is copyrighted and we wish that to be respected, we also must respect the copyrights of others.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
Anything related to grand jury probes are to be kept secret until proceedings end. Another blatant violation by the Starr-Ray probe. And what perfect timing, too, during the Democratic convention. Nonsense like this I hope will backfire against Bush.
Even the Bush spokesperson said in the same article that the timing was ‘suspicious’.
What I find interesting, is that a good lawyer (I know that is an oxymoron.) should be able to get any new charges of obstruction and perjury dismissed. Because the Republicans suceeded in impeaching Pres. Clinton, he was tried in the senate. The trial failed to convict. Therefore he can not be tried again on the charges because of the double jepordy clauses. Unless, of course, these are different instances of perjury and obstuction.
Where Clinton fucked up was he denied a relationship with ‘that woman’. What he should have done was state: “Yeah, I got a knob-job from her, and it was good, too!” The end result might have been pretty much the same, but I think we’d have saved a good chunk of the 50 mil or so Starr & Co. poured down the rat hole.
But, we gotta live with it. There’ll be no end, at least not in my lifetime. Every, little pissant with a law degree, Republican affilations, and a few federal connections will be trying to figure a way to continue the crusade. After all, it’s a sure way to get his name before the public and he still fails to realize just how freaking bored we are with all the bullshit.
And all for lying about an extra-curricular blowjob, which was really all they pinned on him. Keerist!
I hardly think losing one’s license to practice law counts as “committing perjury with impunity.”
Do you really think I don’t know what is going on? The independent counsel, appointed to investigate possible finanancial malfeasance (of which no evidence was found) changed horses in midstream and vetted Clinton’s personal life on account of secret audio tapes released without the permission of those recorded. Do you honestly think this has anything to do with obstruction of justice?
When George Bush promised “No New Taxes,” he might as well have been under oath. Was he tried for perjury?
No, these examples are not analogous, only illustrative. The fact is that the independent counsel had no business scandal-mongering in the first place, and its authority to make such inquiries was illegal. Not to mention that the president was already exonerated by the Senate. This is a witch hunt, not a criminal prosecution.
When providing cites for argument, hyperlinks are always preferable. You can also BRIEFLY quote the relevant portions of copyrighted material, we allow that.
[/quote]
Of course. I received the AP article via internal email, and just cut and pasted it here. It was stupid. So I found a link. No hard feelings?
MR
No problem here, dear heart.
Sorry if we sound a bit tart, copyright violations are a particular problem for us (it’s a big problem all over cyberspace) and we lean a little heavy on it.
And this is a forum and a thread where feelings tend to run high anyway, but it all passes away. Sometimes it even blows over. 
Let me now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
It’s ironic that it appears I’m taking the anti-Clinton view here, since I was (and still am) basically on his side.
The whole situation was indeed ridiculous, and the I have no doubts that the recent re-surfacing of this issue is 100 percent driven by partisan politics and has nothing to do with justice.
However, Maeglin, the arguments you provide are simply illogical. You say:
The “obstruction of justice” I was referring to was the charge against Clinton that he “committed perjury or obstructed justice when he denied an affair with Lewinsky in sworn testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.” (From the ABCnews link you kindly provided)
Was the way it was investigated fishy? Yes. Totally motivated by politics. But that doesn’t change the fact that Clinton commited crimes.
The point I’m trying to make is this (try to pay attention):
**
Even if the independant counsel is a political witch-hunt, and even if the news of the new grand jury was released to hurt Gore on the night of the conventions, and even if you don’t feel like hearing about Lewinsky on the evening news anymore, PERJURY IS STILL AGAINST THE LAW.
**
There are pretty good arguments why the investigation should be dropped, but I sure haven’t heard any from you.
God, I love the logic in this thread.
“It’s double jeapordy!”
Really? Great! Now I can embezzle from my boss, and when my company fires me, I can claim that I can’t be prosecuted by the state because my company already held a review!
“The Republicans were trying to overturn the election of '96!”
Damn straight! We were out to turn the reins of government over to the man who should have rightfully been elected in 1996- Albert Gore!
And, of course, the source has to be a Republican. It certainly couldn’t be that a Democrat found out about the grand jury being convened and leaked it to the press in the hopes that another “anti-impeachment” backlash- especially given the timing of the event- would give Gore a nice boost in the polls. Oh, no, it’s only Republicans who smear their opponents.
And then there’s the fact that Robert Ray was a Democrat until 1998, and is now a registered Independent. Geez, that vast right-wing conspiracy is getting bigger all the time, ain’t it? Hell, if half the people claimed to be part of it actually vote for Bush this year, he’ll win by the widest margin since Johnson in '64!
Really? Care to tell me exactly why? Starr was trying to prove that Clinton got Vernon Jordan to provide jobs in exchange for secrecy for people Clinton didn’t want testifying regarding Whitewater. Along comes news that Jordan got Lewinsky a job to keep her quiet about her affair with Clinton, and suddenly there’s evidence to prove that such an arrangement was a standard part of Clinton’s procedure.
“Exonerated”? No, it was found that his conduct was not- in the minds of less than half of the Senators- an “impeachable” offense. How is that being ‘exonerated’?
Huh. I didn’t know they called grand juries for witch hunts. I thought it was the first step in a criminal prosecution. Guess I’ll have to let the Spanish inquisition know that the rules have changed.
Maybe Revtim should pay attention. Let’s see what he says.
Revtim is defending poisoned fruit from a poisoned tree. If the fruits of a wrongful investigation yield results, then according to Revtim its victim should still be held accountable. So what if the police beat the spit out of an accused to extort a confession? So what if the only reason he was pulled over in the first place was because of racial profiling? He still confessed to owning the joint of grass found in his car, and OWNERSHIP OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IS AGAINST THE LAW.
John Corrado’s analysis is more compelling.
First, I don’t believe that the vast right-wing conspiracy is behind the leak. It just looks coincidentally like it ;). There just isn’t one shred of proof.
You are missing a few steps here. First of all, Starr couldn’t prove that anything was done illegally regarding Whitewater. It’s pretty easy to claim a cover-up when you can’t find the damning evidence that you need. Second, since when did Lewinsky ever threaten to go public with her dalliances with the president? Linda Tripp outed her because she knew that it wouldn’t go public any other way. Third, the fact that Clinton may have thrown a job at her to keep her mouth shut in no way whatsoever proves that it had been his MO all along in a completely unrelated matter. The more coincidental evidence and scandal the IC could heap on Clinton, the more the public would believe it, regardless of evidence. If you throw enough shit, some of it stinks. The implication is that if he is guilty of sexual improprieties, then he is guilty of nonsexual ones as well, despite the fact that the vast investigation has turned up a fat load of nothing.
Oh, so his crime wasn’t so severe that it threatened his office, but severe enough that he should be tried afterwards? What kinds of crimes then are sitting presidents allowed to get away with in office, but private citizens can go to jail for?
What, you’ve never read the Crucible? The first step in a monkey criminal prosecution. Are you saying that they have never happened before, in the history of our great country?
Regards,
MR
So Maeglin, you are saying the Independant Counsel is
illegal. Please reference the laws they are breaking, or please stop talking out of your own “colosotomy hole”.
Or are you know going to do like you did before, and say your analogy is “not analogous”?