Re: Clinton's fake apologies

Yes, there's crypto content in this msg... a passing reference four
paragraphs down.

Somebody said:
> The annoying thing about Clinton's recent behavior is that he never
> comes right out and apologizes, but the press always says he does.
Somebody goes on to do the whole Apology Watch number in detail.

It doesn't matter.  One commentator a few weeks ago had a good line
for it: "All mea and no culpa."  But so what?  This whole apology watch
is totally meaningless.  We know he can perform sincere-looking speeches
on demand, and that's largely why we elected him.  If he gives another
one and says this time that he's really <very> <very> sorry and he's
guilty as hell, I couldn't be more impressed.  Or less.  What he says
about it is irrelevant.

This whole "sex scandal" thing is ludicrous also -- we knew he was a
horn-dog when we elected him.  Yes, my sexual morality is considerably
higher than his, but so what?  Sexual abstinence has never been a
criterion for being President, and probably only one President in
living memory <didn't> have sex outside of wedlock... Peter Langston
published a "Know your Presidents" column in the last few days, a quiz
regarding which Presidents had done what to whom in the Oval Office.
Regarding covering up the sex -- so what?  When he said they weren't
having sex back in February, she was denying it at the time, so it'd
take a pretty sleazy character to say he was schtupping her and she was
lying about it.

The fact is that this sex between consenting adults thing is the best
Starr could do with his Whitewater investigation after umpteen years
and witnesses and millions of dollars, and I'm not impressed.  I'm
<much> more impressed with the kind of allegations Softwar digs up --
sweetheart deals for some company to send encryption to China while
sitting on the bulk of the domestic encryption industry, for example.
If he's really done something that involves treason or high crimes and
misdemeanors, let's hear about it and act on it.  But airing soiled
linen in public isn't germane.

If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like
to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and
concealed it take one step forward.  Shall we make hypocrisy in high
office impeachable also?

Today Dave Farber noted that if the CDA were constitutional (which it
isn't) Congress wouldn't have been allowed to drool over all these
salacious bits on the public networks.

	Jim

Jim Gillogly wrote:
>
> The fact is that this sex between consenting adults thing is the best
> Starr could do with his Whitewater investigation after umpteen years
> and witnesses and millions of dollars, and I'm not impressed.  I'm
> <much> more impressed with the kind of allegations Softwar digs up --
> sweetheart deals for some company to send encryption to China while
> sitting on the bulk of the domestic encryption industry, for example.
> If he's really done something that involves treason or high crimes and
> misdemeanors, let's hear about it and act on it.  But airing soiled
> linen in public isn't germane.
> 
It's worse than not impressive: it's PATHETIC. I thought we'd have 425
pages of real output relating to the last 6 years of "work" and 25 pages
of Monica. I'd rather finance $600 toilet seats and $1200 gold-plated
hammers with my tax money than Starr's brand of open political warfare.
It's simple, partisan, Rottweiler politics. The kind of stuff that makes
you leave your shoes outside the door when you get home at night.

> If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like
> to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and
> concealed it take one step forward.  Shall we make hypocrisy in high
> office impeachable also?
> 
I'd say hypocrisy is more of a hangin' offense, like horse thievin' or
cattle rustlin'. I seethe when I listen to an asshole like Arlin Spectre
or Jerry Falwell spouting off about Clinton. I'm no great fan of
Clinton's but the attackers in this particular shitstorm are lower than
pond scum. I can't wait till they crawl back to the cesspool they came
from.

Mike

Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com>

> It's worse than not impressive: it's PATHETIC. I thought we'd have 425
> pages of real output relating to the last 6 years of "work" and 25 pages
> of Monica. I'd rather finance $600 toilet seats and $1200 gold-plated
> hammers with my tax money than Starr's brand of open political warfare.
> It's simple, partisan, Rottweiler politics. The kind of stuff that makes
> you leave your shoes outside the door when you get home at night.

>From what I have read of Ken Starr's report Washington insider's all 
knew of Clinton's relationship with "That Woman".  Now if Law 
Enforcement (LA) knows Clinton has skeletons in his closet they can 
go to him and tell him he must support lets just say a total ban on 
strong encryption.  Clinton is inbetween a rock and a hard place, he 
must go along with proposals from LA, whether he supports the 
proposals in principle or not.

We have seen some of Clinton's dirty laundry in a segment of his 
life that his attorney wife was not able to advise him.  Now do you 
think Clinton's general standard of morality was any different in his 
life before this scandal in areas where his attorney wife was able to 
pull the strings?  I personally doubt it. 

I see the whole OIC crusade against Clinton as an attempt to bring 
honesty to government.  Ken Starr is just playing the game by the 
rules set out be the Clintons.  If the game looks too rough who do 
you blame? 




Virtually

Raymond D. Mereniuk
Raymond@fbn.bc.ca

>If the game looks too rough who do you blame?
>
Nice point. 

> I see the whole OIC crusade against Clinton as an attempt to bring
> honesty to government.  Ken Starr is just playing the game by the
> rules set out be the Clintons.  
>
But I guess I can't quite buy into it because I see no first order
differences between the Republocrats and the Demicans. The whole thing
looks to me like a redefinition of the rules of engagement in the same
old power struggle. Hardly Control vs. Kaos.

Mike

At 04:35 PM 9/11/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote:

>It's worse than not impressive: it's PATHETIC. I thought we'd have 425
>pages of real output relating to the last 6 years of "work" and 25 pages
>of Monica. I'd rather finance $600 toilet seats and $1200 gold-plated
>hammers with my tax money than Starr's brand of open political warfare.
>It's simple, partisan, Rottweiler politics. The kind of stuff that makes
>you leave your shoes outside the door when you get home at night.

Save that the impeachment of a president is not the main job of the OIC.  He is supposed to 1) Investigate, 2) Indict, and 3) Report to the AG and the 3-judge panel that appointed him.  If he stumbles across evidence of impeachable offenses he can send a report to the House but that is a SIDE job.

Starr took 8 months to go from zero to "evidence of impeachable offenses" in  Fornigate.  The rest of the investigation continues.  He has 5 different areas of responsibility.  He submitted Monica to the House because he had rock solid proof that Clinton is a lying sack of shit and a multiple felon.  Something we knew years ago but couldn't prove.  

With KKKlinton, you don't shoot unless you have an elephant gun.

DCF

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Jim Gillogly wrote:
> 
> If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like
> to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and
> concealed it take one step forward.  Shall we make hypocrisy in high
> office impeachable also?

A better question is: If Clinton is guilty of perjury and other felonies,
should he be impeached? 

If you don't think about lying about sex and related issues under oath
should be a crime, well, then change the law. But right now any form of
lying under oath is perjury, whether you like it or not. 

-Declan

Declan, a few questions on the CDs of the Starr report: 

1. Did the press get the CDs, say, embargoed, before the House 
authorized release? 

2. Who handled the CD distribution, the House or Starr or 3rd 
party?

3. Do you know anything about how the CDs were made, by 
Starr's op or some other party, and when made?

4. Will there be pre-releases of press-only CDs of the remaining 
material, that is, is there a boxed-series prepared of the whole
wad for lobbing week by weekly?

This is a query about fake news, lying, perjuring, you know, to
the American People, whatever that junk-populace is cooked 
up to be.

John, some of the press were relying on House sources to get the material
up as quickly as possible. Also AP provided it to its members on a
password-protected web site. I was the first in Time's DC bureau to get
the report; I'm not going to reveal my source save to say it wasn't
Starr's office. 

-Declan


On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, John Young wrote:

> Declan, a few questions on the CDs of the Starr report: 
> 
> 1. Did the press get the CDs, say, embargoed, before the House 
> authorized release? 
> 
> 2. Who handled the CD distribution, the House or Starr or 3rd 
> party?
> 
> 3. Do you know anything about how the CDs were made, by 
> Starr's op or some other party, and when made?
> 
> 4. Will there be pre-releases of press-only CDs of the remaining 
> material, that is, is there a boxed-series prepared of the whole
> wad for lobbing week by weekly?
> 
> This is a query about fake news, lying, perjuring, you know, to
> the American People, whatever that junk-populace is cooked 
> up to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>