Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)

In reply to my suggestion that lieing under oath isn't
a very good reason for impeachment,  

Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
> Of course it's different if you preface your lie with "I swear to tell the
> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
> 
> The oath is voluntary and therefore if broken no claim for duress, only
> intentional misdirection, can explain such actions.

echoed by nobody@remailer.ch who wrote:
> ...If some public figure ... goes under oath and then lies, ...
> he's trying to throw a wrench in the
> justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under
> oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's
> basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press
> charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes.
> 

I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit.
But, ... impeachment?

You're not charging him with murder (eg WACO), attacking the 1st ammendment (CDA),
the 4th (SSN on driver's licences), the 5th (GAK). You're going after Al Capone
for tax evasion. You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of
the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic
rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical.

nobody@remailer.ch also wrote:
> [quoting me]
> > I'm honoured to draw an ad hominem before revealing that I'm on AOL.
> >
> > -- an anonymous aol32 user.
> 
> Actually, the amazing thing is that you're from AOL. You're coherent, you
> quote, and you know how to use a remailer. One in a million. ;)

Unbelievable, I would have thought. ;->

-- Aol32Monger

At 03:24 AM 9/20/98 -0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit.
>But, ... impeachment?
>
>You're not charging him with murder (eg WACO), attacking the 1st
ammendment (CDA),
>the 4th (SSN on driver's licences), the 5th (GAK). You're going after Al
Capone
>for tax evasion. You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of
>the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic
>rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical.
>

I could care less if he had an affair, personally. But he had an affair
with a subordinate in his direct employ. When CEO's do that, they get
ostracized. I'm in the military. If I did that, I'd be on the carpet seeing
the Ol' Man, perhaps even court martial, and then out of the military. And
this is the example set by my Commander in Chief???
Many other presidents have had affairs while in office, starting with G.
Washington himself. The difference is, they exercised better judgement and
discretion re: who the affair was with, when and where it was consumated.
Certainly the CIC is projecting a bad image, certainly it is his business
if he has an affair, but when he does it in such a manner that it becomes
front page material in every newspaper around the world, there is something
terribly, desperately wrong.

In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation of him, vis-a-vis the rules
established by other demicans, his supposed compatriates, is still ongoing. 

Methinks this is just the tip of the iceberg, a bone for the populace to
chew on so that when the rest of the story breaks, we (the dog) won't
notice the prime rib and sirloin.

I congratulate you for your defense of a person who demonstrably has broken
his marriage vows, his oath of public office, and purjured himself while
under an additional oath in a court of law.

You, too, are a few neurons short of a functional synapse.

I suggest you discuss it with the maker. The best way is large caliber
bullet at sufficient velocity to penetrate and exit the cranial cavity.

God speed, you fucking idiot.

Reeza!

	The world was on fire,,, but no one could save me but you...
		Strange what desire ,,will make foolish people do.....
			(to the back beat)
				This world is only gonna break your heart....
					==C.I.==

Reeza! wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation of him, vis-a-vis the rules
> established by other demicans, his supposed compatriates, is still ongoing.
> 
> Methinks this is just the tip of the iceberg, a bone for the populace to
> chew on so that when the rest of the story breaks, we (the dog) won't
> notice the prime rib and sirloin.
> 
Completely illogical. Give me one good reason not to lead with your best
punch? I suspect Starr's work is voluminous but weak on all other counts
so he led with what would create the most publicity. I've said that I'm
no great fan of Clinton's but this entire investigation is blatantly
partisan and has brought the political process in this country about as
low as it is possible to bring it. 

Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
for liberty not of their own definition.

Mike

At 1:03 PM -0700 9/21/98, Duncan Frissell wrote:

>
>Like Clinton, right?  I certainly like to see the damage to the Presidency.
> We also don't have to worry about any tobacco legislation for a few years.
>

Yep. Give the man a cigar.

The paralysis of the U.S. government is heartwarming. No talk about sending
troops to Kosovo, no plans to give the IMF more money to send to Russian
and Wall Street mafiosos (mafiosi?), no talk of sending life preservers to
the tens of millions of Bengalis drowning and sinking into the muck in
Dacca, and not much of anything else.

I love it.

--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Michael Motyka wrote:

> Reeza! wrote:
> > In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation of him, vis-a-vis the rules
> > established by other demicans, his supposed compatriates, is still ongoing.
> > 
> > Methinks this is just the tip of the iceberg, a bone for the populace to
> > chew on so that when the rest of the story breaks, we (the dog) won't
> > notice the prime rib and sirloin.
> > 
> Completely illogical. Give me one good reason not to lead with your best
> punch? I suspect Starr's work is voluminous but weak on all other counts
> so he led with what would create the most publicity. I've said that I'm
> no great fan of Clinton's but this entire investigation is blatantly
> partisan and has brought the political process in this country about as
> low as it is possible to bring it. 
> 

Actually he was directed to present evidence of impeachable offenses
as soon as he found them.  Well he thinks he has found some and I
might concurr on a few.

Blatantly partisan impeachment hearings?  Say it aint so, Joe!

If you think the political process has never been lower then you
need to recheck the history of the last several years.  How about
Democrats and Republicans joining hand in hand to cheer on
the baby burning BATF in Waco?  Is your religion ATF approved?

How about murdering innocent mothers while they are holding
their babies in their arms?  A scene worthy of Hollywood 
depictions of WWII era Nazi's.  Sure, Weaver got his money,
but was anyone punished?  Will the money bring back his
family?

These cowards in Congress didn't have the balls to punish these
murderers then and they certainly don't seem to have changed
their tune.

When someone else had the cajones to try one of these bastards
on the soft charge of manslaughter the feds showed their true
colors and usurped jurisdiction and found them innocent under
color of law...

I seem to remember something about that by Tom Jefferson in the
Declaration of Independence:

"...For quatering large bodies of troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for
    any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of
    these States"

That pretty much clinches it.  Yes, the political process
has been lower.  Unpunished baby burners, free roaming mother
murderers.  All performed by the Hostage Rescue Team with loving
grace.

Love is Hate.

Peace is War.

I love Big Brother.

I realize that now.

jb

At 09:50 AM 9/21/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote:
> 
>Completely illogical. Give me one good reason not to lead with your best
>punch? I suspect Starr's work is voluminous but weak on all other counts
>so he led with what would create the most publicity. I've said that I'm
>no great fan of Clinton's but this entire investigation is blatantly
>partisan and has brought the political process in this country about as
>low as it is possible to bring it. 

The affairs of Men rarely rely upon the dictates of logic, or even common
sense.

National Security. 
International Relations.
Self Interest Re: Future Employment.
Direct and Specific instruction from immediate supervisor. He does report
to a panel of others.

It is weaker than it could be on other counts, due to many/most/all of the
prime candidates selected to testify against the sitting....person, keep
turning up dead. Go Figure.

Certainly it has ties to partisanship. Clarence Thomas. The Demicans made
the rules, now the Publicrats are playing by them. I'm reminded of a line
from the recent movie "Good Will Hunting". "How do you like them apples?"

Certainly it has given the Nation a black eye. We are now down in the
gutter, at what would seem to be Clintons level, discussing the merits of
cigars with or without extra flavoring.

>Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>for liberty not of their own definition.

Starr's base approach? You mean 'basic' don't you? No, you were right. But
remember, it is all strictly by the Demican play book.

I also agree that the Beltway needs a shakedown, I share your fears. 

Reeza!


"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people,
time and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an
effective leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put
the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no
purpose in finishing out his term; the only possible solution is for the
president to save some dignity and resign."

- William Jefferson Clinton, speaking of Richard M. Nixon, 1974

At 11:50 AM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>for liberty not of their own definition.

	Which is different from today how?

--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

Petro wrote:
> 
> At 11:50 AM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
> >Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
> >turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
> >just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
> >run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
> >for liberty not of their own definition.
> 
>         Which is different from today how?
> 
In spite of their <numerous?> shortcomings, many of today's politicians
in both parties seem to be fairly pragmatic, 'middle of the road' types.
If the only people who can pass muster under the emerging standards are
religous fundamentalists then we will have a Bill of Rights under attack
problem that is another order of magnitude greater than we have right
now. Scares me because while I'm pretty much a live and let live sort,
some of the fundamentalists I've known are not very tolerant. 

Mike

At 2:14 PM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>Petro wrote:
>>
>> At 11:50 AM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>> >Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>> >turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>> >just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>> >run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>> >for liberty not of their own definition.
>>
>>         Which is different from today how?
>>
>In spite of their <numerous?> shortcomings, many of today's politicians
>in both parties seem to be fairly pragmatic, 'middle of the road' types.
>If the only people who can pass muster under the emerging standards are
>religous fundamentalists then we will have a Bill of Rights under attack
>problem that is another order of magnitude greater than we have right
>now. Scares me because while I'm pretty much a live and let live sort,
>some of the fundamentalists I've known are not very tolerant.

	The "live and let" attitude of todays politician is there simply
because that is where they get the most votes. If they thought that they
would get better results, they's thump the bible just as hard as say...

	Jimmy Swagart.

--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.

At 09:50 AM 9/21/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote:

>Completely illogical. Give me one good reason not to lead with your best
>punch? I suspect Starr's work is voluminous but weak on all other counts
>so he led with what would create the most publicity. 

Starr did an Impeachment Referral with the stuff he had incontrovertible
proof of.  Proof is very difficult when dealing with someone like Clinton
and you don't want to do a Referral with insufficient proof.  Notice that
even with proof of multiple felonies the Clintonistas say that they aren't
important felonies.

>I've said that I'm
>no great fan of Clinton's but this entire investigation is blatantly
>partisan and has brought the political process in this country about as
>low as it is possible to bring it. 

The Special Counsel was appointed at the request of the President after 6
Democrat Senators called for it.  Republicans don't like Clinton but they
don't have to.  

>Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. 

He's just behaving in the way the Democrats designed the OIC to behave.  A
prosecutor on speed with no boss and no budget.  That was their intent.  US
Attorneys or local DAs would behave the same way if they had the cash.  Law
& Order Liberals like Clinton can hardly complain.  Better him than some
18-year-old drug lookout sentenced to 40 years or some accident-free drunk
driver sentenced to life (Texas recently).

>Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>for liberty not of their own definition.

Like Clinton, right?  I certainly like to see the damage to the Presidency.
 We also don't have to worry about any tobacco legislation for a few years.  

DCF

"We'll give you more than you deserve.  We'll give you Justice."

At 07:57 PM 9/21/98 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>The paralysis of the U.S. government is heartwarming. No talk about sending
>troops to Kosovo, no plans to give the IMF more money to send to Russian
>and Wall Street mafiosos (mafiosi?), no talk of sending life preservers to

That just means they'll do all those things quietly, without
trying to take credit for it in public :-)

Or alternatively, they'll try to do it as a 
"Let's get back to business!  See, the Imperial Office Of The Presidency 
is too important to damage it through impeachment just because
of a little lying about sex, which Clinton was doing before you elected him,
so now that you've all had your fun, there's Important Work To Do!"
which is a nice thing to do after summer vacation anyway,
while all the Congresscritters are away from DC running for re-election.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 12:14 PM 9/21/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote:

>In spite of their <numerous?> shortcomings, many of today's politicians
>in both parties seem to be fairly pragmatic, 'middle of the road' types.
>If the only people who can pass muster under the emerging standards are
>religous fundamentalists then we will have a Bill of Rights under attack
>problem that is another order of magnitude greater than we have right
>now. Scares me because while I'm pretty much a live and let live sort,
>some of the fundamentalists I've known are not very tolerant. 
>
>Mike

The commies I've known are even less tolerant:

>From: OBRL-News <demeo@mind.net>
>To: obrl-news@lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject:- FDA Book-Burning... Again!
>
>Orgone Biophysical Research Lab <demeo@mind.net>
>http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/index.htm
>Forwarded News Item
>
>Please copy and distribute to other interested individuals and groups
>
>**********
>
>>         FDA Orders Destruction of Stevia Books
>>
>>On May 20, 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
>>ordered the destuction of 2,500 books about the herbal sweetener
>>stevia. A small company in Arlington Texas, Stevita, Co., was
>>visited by the FDA and forced to stop selling stevia and books
>>that mention that stevia can be used as a sweetener.

Just another regulatory book burning.  (Oops, book *pulping* burning is
environmentally incorrect.

There are plenty of commies itching to fine me, fire me, or lock me up for
criticizing congresscritters within 6 months of an election (campaign
finance reform), refusing to attend their re-education and self criticism
sessions (racial/sexual harassment awareness training), or mailing a number
10 envelope customers (illegal medical device labeling - I kid you not). 

A fundie admin would issue fewer total regs than a commie-liberal admin
(experience suggests) so freedom would be in better shape on balance.
Chart the annual pages of the Federal Register issued by Dems vs Reps.
Dems are *way* out in front.  Taxes would almost certainly be lower
(Clinton's are the highest in peacetime history).

I wouldn't worry.  If we survived Clinton we can survive the Republicans.
Meanwhile the Presidency has been weakened.

DCF

>Petro wrote:
>>
>> At 11:50 AM -0500 9/21/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
>> >Starr's base approach to justice is the opening shot of what I hope
>> >turns into an all-out scorched-earth battle. Let 'em all fall down. I'm
>> >just afraid that when it's over the only people who will be willing to
>> >run for public office will be truly dangerous people who have no respect
>> >for liberty not of their own definition.
>>
>>         Which is different from today how?
>>
>In spite of their <numerous?> shortcomings, many of today's politicians
>in both parties seem to be fairly pragmatic, 'middle of the road' types.
>If the only people who can pass muster under the emerging standards are
>religous fundamentalists then we will have a Bill of Rights under attack
>problem that is another order of magnitude greater than we have right
>now. Scares me because while I'm pretty much a live and let live sort,
>some of the fundamentalists I've known are not very tolerant.
>
>Mike

I know it's a mistake to reply to this stuff but it would be nice for
someone to maintain the context. Clinton was on trial for sexual
harrassment. When giving testimony under oath he chose to lie in order to
cover his own ass. I don't much care about the private lives of politicians
but I do care how they behave in public places like courts of law. That is
what he is trouble for, not for his filandering proclivities which were
public known before he became president. Just to help the Clintonites
understand: "It's about perjury, stupid!"

Steve Bryan
Vendorsystems International
email: sbryan@vendorsystems.com
icq: 5263678
pgp fingerprint: D758 183C 8B79 B28E 6D4C  2653 E476 82E6 DA7C 9AC5

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Reeza! wrote:

   [snip bunch of a good ream applied where required --]

>
>In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation of him, vis-a-vis the rules
>established by other demicans, his supposed compatriates, is still ongoing. 
>
>Methinks this is just the tip of the iceberg, a bone for the populace to
>chew on so that when the rest of the story breaks, we (the dog) won't
>notice the prime rib and sirloin.
>
    we all know that -- the question is whether or not the Klintons have
    left enough witnesses alive to prove it!  who's next on their hit
    parade?

>I congratulate you for your defense of a person who demonstrably has broken
>his marriage vows, his oath of public office, and purjured himself while
>under an additional oath in a court of law.
>
>You, too, are a few neurons short of a functional synapse.
>
    perfect! slap! slap! let's do it again!

>I suggest you discuss it with the maker. The best way is large caliber
>bullet at sufficient velocity to penetrate and exit the cranial cavity.
>
    cant do this one more than once unless it's Vince Foster.

>God speed, you fucking idiot.
>
    yup, praise the Lord, and pass the ammo; we'll even help a few you
    fellows out [the door].

>Reeza!
>
    gave me a good laugh --thanx, Reeza!

    ooo-rah!


>	The world was on fire,,, but no one could save me but you...
>		Strange what desire ,,will make foolish people do.....
>			(to the back beat)
>				This world is only gonna break your heart....
>					==C.I.==
>

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.