# Robert Ray Talks Out Of His Colostomy Hole Again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 17, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783 "2000-08-17T21:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2000, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/41 "2000-08-20T04:04:12Z")
**John Corrado** , you have just won the battle of The Pit. What are you going to do now? And Clinton’s was not a victimless crime. He shattered the faith millions of CNN watching schoolchildren had in the U.S. government. ---
**Author:** ![Chewie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Chewie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chewie)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2000, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/42 "2000-08-20T23:12:36Z")
Speaking as an uneffected Kiwi, I think all your Politicians are fuckwits, but Democrats are the worst. Well, maybe the Creationist Republicans, its hard to say. So, the obvious answer is, P.J.O’Rourke for President!!! The intelligent face of American Journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/43 "2000-08-21T15:19:56Z")
I hate having no access over the weekend. I just can’t muster the negative energy to give a proper reply after an excellent weekend. But for your sake, I think I will try. > [@](#): > > And it’s pretty hard to find evidence when the key players (like Jim McDougal) are willing to sit in jail in contempt rather than admit any evidence which might point at the President. First of all, Jim McDougal _is_ not willing to sit in jail, he _was_ willing. He died in solitary confinement. His wife, also persecuted by the independent counsel, correctly identified their motives as a perjury trap. McDougal was a crooked businessman, and had entirely too much to lose by testifying one way or another. He didn’t know what dirt Starr had on him, and did not want to be caught perjuring himself in addition to all of his other little misdeeds, including ripping off the Small Business Administration. But good businessmen can have crooked partners. McDougal’s crimes do not impugn Clinton. My own father was ripped off by crooked partners, and let me tell you, his own practices are quite above board. McDougal was trying to save his own ass. So like I said, it is easy to call something a coverup when there isn’t any evidence. There was plenty of smack on McDougal, so where was the paper trail on Clinton? > [@](#): > > Huh. _I_ can’t see where I ever said that Lewinsky threatened to go public. It’s not precisely what you said. You claimed that Clinton’s MO is to set people up with jobs to keep them from singing. Since Lewinsky never threatened to make a stink, where is this “pattern”? Maybe Jordan just gave her a job. The IC suspicion is purely coincidental, like I have been saying over and over again. > [@](#): > > Except that Vernon Jordan had gotten Jim McDougal a job shortly after the Whitewater probe began. Making a pattern that when Jordan offered someone a job, it was from Clinton in exchange for keeping their mouth shut about ‘their little secret’; in McDougal’s case, Whitewater; in Lewinsky’s case, their affair. Read above again. McDougal kept quiet because serving time for contempt is easier than serving time for his numerous frauds. And Lewinsky never intimated that she would blow the whistle on the president (sorry, but that pun was intentional). So this pattern is purely circumstantial. It wouldn’t hold up in any court of law, and it sure didn’t hold up in the Senate. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. The reason for involving Lewinsky was because Starr hoped that he could show the grand jury a pattern that Clinton followed, and therefore the grand jury could walk to the conclusion that Clinton was trying to cover his tracks in the Whitewater matter. Which is such a bullshit argument I could almost laugh. There is a reason that a person’s criminal record is largely inadmissible in a criminal trial. Starr didn’t have the ev on Clinton, and tried to heap up circumstantial evidence against him. > [@](#): > > As far as the ‘implication is that if he is guilty of sexual improprieties, then he is guilty of nonsexual ones as well’, I’m sure Starr thought that would go over _brilliantly_ with the grand jury or the Senate, both of whom were the ones who would make the final decision. (That’s, I say, that’s sarcasm, son.) But that essentially was his argument. If Clinton got a blowjob from Lewinsky and covered it up, than the _appearance_ of a Whitewater coverup _must_ indicate his guilt. I am surprised you are so reluctant to see this, son. (no sarcasm whatsoever) > [@](#): > > Besides, if anyone was throwing shit, it was Clinton and his aides. Did you hear Sidney Blumenthal stand outside of the grand jury and completely > fabricate for reporters what he had been asked about? Not a single thing he said in his press conference about his testimony was true; it was all lies > designed to make Starr look like a vindictive bastard. Apparently, you’ve bought that argument. I do think Starr is a vindictive bastard. But I also think Blumenthal is a lying sack of shit. The two views are not mutually exclusive. I don’t need to take that dickhead’s word for it when I can read the Starr report. > [@](#): > > Funny. Sounds like you’re arguing that Clinton should have been impeached in the first place. People _do_ go to jail for perjury. The fact that Clinton didn’t > get removed from office is pure partisanship on the part of the Democrats, who felt that they could get more mileage out of portraying the Republicans as > “harsh” and “moralistic” than they could out of actually doing the right thing. Well it’s obvious that they were right. It’s a pity that harsh sanctimony is now the trend in politics. And don’t tell me that the IC was not partisan politics, either. It’s funny how few Republicans will even own up to their greatest triumph against a liberal administration. They feel the need to rationalize, as if they were ashamed of it. > [@](#): > > Let me make sure I’m interpreting this correctly. Because what it looks like to me is that you’re trying to hold this up as evidence that the Democrats do > the right thing regarding events within the other party and leaking information, while Republicans do the wrong thing. If I’m misinterpreting your statement, > ignore my next paragraph, but please give me an explanation of what the hell this has to do with anything then. Good, because your not interpreting this correctly. I just pointed this out as a matter of interest. I said in my last post that there wasn’t a shred of evidence that the Republicans timed the leak. For the record, I don’t think the Democrats are any more or less noble than the Republicans. More sometimes, less other times. I suppose it all evens out. I am opinionated on individual issues, and I am a party line voter by no stretch of the imagination. For all the good that Clinton’s _administration_ has accomplished, I think the man is a craven wretch. However, I do believe that there has been a serious abridgement of justice. After all, even craven sacks of shit have rights, too. MR ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/44 "2000-08-21T15:47:04Z")
**Maeglin** said: > [@](#): > > It wouldn’t hold up in any court of law, and it sure didn’t hold up in the Senate. Okay, you’re mixing apples and oranges here. Starr was out to prove that Clinton had Jordan offer McDougal a job in order to keep his silence; he was hoping that he could prove that by showing that he had offered Lewinsky the same sort of deal. Did he prove that apple? No. I agree with you there. But that _wasn’t_ what Starr brought forward to the House or the Senate. That was just what led Starr to investigate Lewinsky and her relationship with the President. Then the President proceeded to commit perjury in a seperate case regarding Lewinsky. This orange was what Starr brought forward to the House. If you want to say that Starr never managed to prove the apple, I agree. If you want to say that Starr not proving the apple means that the orange was also false, then you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > But that essentially was his argument. If Clinton got a blowjob from Lewinsky and covered it up, than the appearance of a Whitewater coverup must indicate his guilt. I am surprised you are so reluctant to see this, son. (no sarcasm whatsoever) But again, you’re mixing the apple with the orange. Yeah, sure, it makes great Snapple, but it’s not what we’re talking about. Once Clinton committed perjury, Starr dropped the apple and moved on to the orange. If your reasoning is correct, then why wasn’t Whitewater the item Clinton was impeached upon instead of perjury? Yes, before Clinton lied, Starr was trying to prove that Clinton did illegal things in Whitewater (the apple). But once Clinton lied, Starr dropped the apple- probably because he realized that it was going nowhere fast compared to the orange that was the perjury Clinton had committed. Again- the apple was a weak case, I agree. But you’re once again comparing apples and oranges. > [@](#): > > Good, because your not interpreting this correctly. I just pointed this out as a matter of interest. I’m glad I’m wasn’t interpreting it correctly; but I am still confused as to why you thought it was a matter of interest. > [@](#): > > I do believe that there has been a serious abridgement of justice. After all, even craven sacks of shit have rights, too. I also agree there was a serious abridgement of justice, just in the complete opposite direction. I think that Clinton, his aides, and his allies managed to turn a question of legality into one of popularity, and therefore got off scott-free because they were able to paint Ken Starr as some sort of Grand-Inquisitor wannabe, Bill Clinton as a martyred sinner, and the entire issue as one regarding private sex rather than committing perjury. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/45 "2000-08-21T16:10:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Maeglin said: > Okay, you’re mixing apples and oranges here. > > Starr was out to prove that Clinton had Jordan offer McDougal a job in order to keep his silence; he was hoping that he could prove that by showing that he had offered Lewinsky the same sort of deal. > > Did he prove that apple? No. I agree with you there. But that is the task that the Independent Counsel was appointed to do. Starr’s job was not to pass Clinton through the shredder and antagonize him on anything he could find. Do I think Clinton shot himself in the foot? Yes. Do I also believe that Starr was setting him up to perjor himself? Yes. I believe that the inquiry should have ended long before the Lewinsky case arose due to the complete paucity of evidence. > [@](#): > > But that _wasn’t_ what Starr brought forward to the House or the Senate. That was just what led Starr to investigate Lewinsky and her relationship with the President. Then the President proceeded to commit perjury in a seperate case regarding Lewinsky. This orange was what Starr brought forward to the House. I agree with you literally. But (to continue the metaphor) Starr may have presented the Senate with an orange, but he was encumbered by a lot of apple baggage. I believe that there was a strong implication that because Clinton had lied about Lewinsky, he had also lied about Whitewater. Hence Starr must have been hoping that all of the bad feelings about WW would influence the impeachment vote. > [@](#): > > If you want to say that Starr never managed to prove the apple, I agree. If you want to say that Starr not proving the apple means that the orange was also false, then you’re wrong. False is the wrong word. It’s pretty obvious that Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman. But I also believe that he was led to perjor himself. He didn’t know _what_ Starr had on him. McDougal had better legal advice and just kept his big fat rot shut. He didn’t get entrapped. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I suppose I think about it this way. A cop acquires a search warrant to investigate someone’s house looking for something _in particular_ based on the reasonable belief that it is there. So if a cop rifles through a man’s apartment looking for drugs and finds a hacked corpse instead, it is inadmissible as evidence without further due process. So Starr has all the dirt he needs on Clinton and sets him up to perjor himself. Starr was supposed to be investigating crooked real estate deals. Since he found no evidence of that, he justified his nebulous investigation with the likelihood of a coverup. Fine. But I believe that he violated at least the spirit of due process. I am not a lawyer, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about the details of these matters. Nevertheless I am a reasonable person, and it just doesn’t seem _fair_ to me. > [@](#): > > I’m glad I’m wasn’t interpreting it correctly; but I am still confused as to why you thought it was a matter of interest. It wasn’t even in reply to you. Others were discussing what the democrats would do to make themselves look good, bad, etc, and I thought they might be interested to see what they withheld. > [@](#): > > I think that Clinton, his aides, and his allies managed to turn a question of legality into one of popularity, and therefore got off scott-free because they were able to paint Ken Starr as some sort of Grand-Inquisitor wannabe, Bill Clinton as a martyred sinner, and the entire issue as one regarding private sex rather than committing perjury. I think we’ve bottomed out here, then. I think the independent counsel and its allies have used every excuse it could to persecute Clinton, only arriving at entrapped perjury for lack of anything else that would stick. Clinton is no martyred sinner, and I don’t think Starr is a Grand Inquisitor. I believe that Starr did what he thought was right in the beginning, and the matter simply spiralled out of control. If Clinton _had_ been proven guilty of nefarious business activities, I would not exactly be running to his defense. MR ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/46 "2000-08-21T17:32:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I think we’ve bottomed out here, then. I think the independent counsel and its allies have used every excuse it could to persecute Clinton, only arriving at entrapped perjury for lack of anything else that would stick. Clinton is no martyred sinner, and I don’t think Starr is a Grand Inquisitor. I believe that Starr did what he thought was right in the beginning, and the matter simply spiralled out of control. If Clinton had been proven guilty of nefarious business activities, I would not exactly be running to his defense. Well, by this paragraph, I’m mostly in agreement with you, and perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the rest. I just have a few more comments to make (not to ‘score points’ or anything like that; just so that I can clarify a few things in my mind). > [@](#): > > Right, wrong, or indifferent, I suppose I think about it this way. A cop acquires a search warrant to investigate someone’s house looking for something in particular based on the reasonable belief that it is there. So if a cop rifles through a man’s apartment looking for drugs and finds a hacked corpse instead, it is inadmissible as evidence without further due process. Inadmissable as evidence for the drug charge- correct. Inadmissable as evidence for a new murder charge- incorrect. I am quite sure that the police can accept as evidence any items found during a search, even should the search be for something entirely different. The fact that so-and-so is a murderer can’t bear upon the charge that he dealt drugs, but the police aren’t supposed to pretend they didn’t find the corpse. Given that I see your argument as “they were searching for bodies (Whitewater) and found drugs (perjury), they shouldn’t have been able to go after the drugs”, I think you’re mistaken. Again, as I’ve said in other place, if I’ve misinterpreted your position or your above statement, my apologies. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t even in reply to you. Others were discussing what the democrats would do to make themselves look good, bad, etc, and I thought they might be interested to see what they withheld. My mistake, then. Must have had my blinders on. Again, my apologies for insinuating or believing that you were taking such a tack or opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2000, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783/47 "2000-08-21T19:06:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Inadmissable as evidence for the drug charge- correct. Inadmissable as evidence for a new murder charge- incorrect. I am quite sure that the police can accept as evidence any items found during a search, even should the search be for something entirely different. The fact that so-and-so is a murderer can’t bear upon the charge that he dealt drugs, but the police aren’t supposed to pretend they didn’t find the corpse. I’m afraid I was unclear: I did imply the above. However, my point was to indicate that I perceived a failure of due process. To stretch the previous example out one more time: if you find the corpse, the owner of the apartment is informed about it, and the wheels of justice just spin in a different way. The appropriate paperwork is filled out, different charges are filed, etc. You don’t raid a man’s apartment for drugs, find a corpse, and ask him about it while withholding the juicy find from him completely, thereby setting him up for perjury. Hell, if I were warehousing bodies and thought my opponents were questioning me on a hunch only, I’d probably deny it from here to hell. If I knew that evidence had been unearthed, well, _nolo contendere_. Our system, as far as I know, works on full disclosure. I feel that is what the IC investigation lacked. I contend that the president was entrapped because the IC was more interested in drumming up dirt than getting to the bottom of the Whitewater inquiry. > [@](#): > > My mistake, then. Must have had my blinders on. Again, my apologies for insinuating or believing that you were taking such a tack or opinion. No problem at all. I understand completely how you might have gotten that impression. You never quoted me falsely or anything. Regards, MR [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-ray-talks-out-of-his-colostomy-hole-again/29783.md?page=2)