|  |
|
| |
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/11/98 7:20:20 PM
# Replies: 50
...The abridged HOT SEX version of the Kenneth Starr report, edited, for your convenience, from the original document.
The text has not been changed, although I *may* have replaced some of the original footnotes with my own.
Response #1
By: sooz
Date: 9/12/98 4:09:08 PM
Fang, you posted that 3 hours after the report became public. You're amazing.
What I wanna know is, where's the Whitewater report Ken Starr was hired to do? I coulda gotten this stuff from Penthouse. It's boring.
Response #2
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/12/98 5:30:23 PM
My inner child EATS THIS STUFF UP. I find this all incredibly entertaining, and BEEG FUN.
My inner adult is mostly just sad and disgusted, because this whole mess never should have been any of my business, but the "vast right-wing conspiracy" MADE it everyone's business. After millions of dollars and many years they couldn't "get" the President on the original accusations, so they essentially "stung" him by giving Lewinsky's name to the Paula Jones people, knowing the odds were pretty good that he'd be caught lying under oath about his relationship with her.
I honestly don't believe this SHOULD cost him the Presidency. Maybe his marriage, if Hillary is so inclined, but not the Presidency.
But Starr and his camp have succeeded in showing that the President was a despicable husband, and, contingent upon whether or not he successfully tapdanced around the legal-ese of the questions in his depositions, probably a perjurer.
There may actually *be* grounds to boot Clinton, who I think is one of our better Presidents, out of office.
It's just sad, that's what it is.
Response #3
By: Hijinx
Date: 9/12/98 6:44:18 PM
It is sad, but we wouldn't have had to spend a few million on this if first, Clinton had kept his winky in his britches, and, second, didn't lie about keeping his winky in his britches. If he was honest from the get-go, HE himself could've saved us that money, but he carried the charade on as long as he could, so, we've got no one to blame...Clinton has no one to blame but Bill Clinton.
Unless of course, we wanna go blaming the people that voted for him, but the fact is, he did it, and now he's FINALLY forced to fess up, and he's made America a bigger laughingstock than it was before.
Hell, I'd laugh at America, too, if I was on the outside looking in.
Response #4
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/12/98 7:35:16 PM
I don't think the US is the laughingstock of the rest of the world.
I don't think the rest of the world really cares.
Response #5
By: Ralf
Date: 9/13/98 1:49:14 AM
That's pretty accurate. In Norway they were puzzled about why anyone cares... extramarital sex is just not that big of a deal in Europe.
Dag, my Norwegian host, figures Clinton's guilty of a misdemeanor at most -- like jaywalking. "You Americans always make such a big deal out of things," I was told.
(....aaaaand, in the Middle East, you can lose your penis for stealing a loaf of bread. Or something. I guess it just depends on the location of your penal misconduct.)
Response #6
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/13/98 11:33:36 AM
Sooz Sez:
----------------------
What I wanna know is, where's the Whitewater report Ken Starr was hired to do? I coulda gotten this stuff from Penthouse.
----------------------
There wasn't, if I am remembering correctly, going to be a Whitewater report. That intended outcome was mainly to determine the extent of an wrongdoings by the Clinton's and their associates by submitting indictments, if needed, to the Justice Department. So I guess you could say the actual "Whitewater Report" came out in the form of the indictments that were sent to the DOJ. All this other stuff...Paula Jones, Monica, etc...came in because of the connections between possible cover-up by the White House in those matters looked strangely similar to the charges of wrongdoings coming out of the Paula Jones case. To quote the report.."Based in part on these similarities, the OIC undertook a preliminary investigation. On January 15, 1998, this Office informed the Justice Department of the results of our inquiry. The Attorney General immediately applied to the Special Division of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for an expansion of the OIC's jurisdiction. The Special Division granted
this request and authorized the OIC to determine whether Monica Lewinsky or others had violated federal law in connection
with the Jones v. Clinton case."
It's a long involved road from where this all started to where it has ended up, and most people have forgotten how all this has built up over time, getting so wrapped up in the issue of Clinton's affair they forget the rest. One thing connecting to another and so on.
There is a timeline of events, missing some details, at the Washington Post Website to clear up some of the confusion over why this really isn't all about whether Clinton had an affair.
And of course the full text of the report is available on Thomas, along with the text of House Resolution 252 which orders the release of this information to the public, which for created a huge fight in the House over whether the report would be released or not.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #7
By: sooz
Date: 9/13/98 11:37:37 AM
Ya know, John F. Kennedy hardly ever kept his winkie in his pants, and no one made a big deal of it. Historically, presidents have fiddled and faddled. Even Biblically, some of the best leaders (David, Solomon) didn't keep their winkies in ther pants (or robes or whatever). It's not illegal to be sleazy.
Before this presidency, the Paula Jones case never would have made it to court. "The president invited you to his room and flashed you 10 years ago? Yeah, and your point is...?" I mean, really... why didn't she speak up when it happened?
Yeah, the president has probably perjured himself now. But it never should have been brought up to begin with, starting with Paula Jones.
Sure it's about sex. That sells much better than boring ol' Whitewater.
Response #8
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/13/98 12:43:41 PM
Sure sex sells better, but sex isn't illegal. He can have sex with anyone he likes, and I doubt any reasonable person would care.
Perjury, if true, is illegal.
Obstruction of justice, if true, is illegal.
Abuse of power, if true, illegal.
These are the "charges", not that he sleeps around. You're right, many good Presidents have had a similar inclination. And I personally don't care who or what gets him off, even if he was doing the worse job as President in the history of the Republic, I STILL wouldn't care. But if he broke the above laws in the process, THAT is an issue I would think IS worth caring about.
Maybe the Paula Jones stuff shouldn't have come up, but that is absolutely no excuse for the above charges, if true. Nobody MADE him break the law, he chose to do so to protect himself. You can't pick and choose which laws to obey AND expect not to have to face the consequences if you are caught. When I speed I know I am consciously breaking the law. When I have been caught, I don't try to weasle out of it or get pissed at the police officer for pulling me over. I say "Yes officer", sign the ticket and pay my fine. I know the consequences and I am willing to accept them if I get caught in exchange for getting to work on time. Its about personal responsibility and being adult enough to choose wisely and accept the consequences of those choice. Simple as that.
Now when / if Congressional review towards possible impeachment gets into full gear and the details get to the public, each American citizen will be left with their own very personal choice with its own unavoidable responsibilities.
#1 - Were the positive things that Clinton did as President, enough to make it ok for the President to violate the law the way he did?
#2 - More generally. Is it ok for any President to break the law as long as he gives us a good economy in exchange? And where do you draw the line?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #9
By: Ralf
Date: 9/14/98 12:36:04 AM
So he's a sex crazed maniac. So what? He lied about it. So what?
What crime has been committed? Has he done anything that would impact ANYONE outside his immediate family? (Ignoreing the meta-impact the media generated when they made such a big deal about this sorry fuckup...)
What's the risk if he goes unpunished? Why should I be taxed ANOTHER $10 million to impeach him? What possible good can come of impeachment?
Response #10
By: sooz
Date: 9/14/98 9:05:10 AM
Well, the crime is perjury, 'cuz he lieed to someone wearing a robe. That's a big-ass crime.
My question is, if the Paula Jones case was a bogus case anyway, what's it matter what occurred in that trial?
Response #11
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 9/14/98 2:30:02 PM
Perjury, subbornation of perjury and abuse of office are supposedly the charges.
All this because someone isn't allowed to say, "It's none of your business."
If I asked anyone here about your sex life, you could tell me it's none of my business. It's private. It's personal.
Apparently Bill Clinton doesn't have that right.
Response #12
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/14/98 9:39:40 PM
Dear RepHouse:
I never believed those reports were true until one day it happened to me....
Response #13
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/15/98 1:33:47 AM
Ralf Sez:
-------------------
So he's a sex crazed maniac. So what? He lied about it. So what?
What crime has been committed?
-------------------
Simple lying isn't illegal, but lying under oath is called perjury. Doesn't matter what it is you're lying about it's illegal. If he lied under oath he broke the law. He could have told the truth, and dealt with it 7 months and $5 million tax payers dollars sooner. He could have invoked the 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination.
There is also the question of abuse of power, if he used his office to cover up his perjury and interfere with an on-going investigation. That would be obstruction of justice, and multiple counts be the look of it if proven to be true.
If you or I were to do this we'd be facing big Federal jailtime with big fines. So the questions is the President subject to the same laws as we are? Or, by the nature of his office or by the fact that we thinks he's a cool guy who gets lots of chicks, ok for him to break the law?
Ralf also Sez:
--------------------
What's the risk if he goes unpunished?
--------------------
I guess that depends upon it upon whether you think the President is accountable before the law for his actions or whether you believe that he is above the law. And subsequently which legal precedent you would rather future Presidents to be bound by, obeying the law or breaking it when it is personally inconvenient for them.
And THEN Ralf Sez:
--------------------
Why should I be taxed ANOTHER $10 million to impeach him?
--------------------
Again, this comes down to a question of an individuals belief on whether Justice is something that should only be dispensed when it is economical.
And at the end Ralf Sez:
------------------------
What possible good can come of impeachment?
------------------------
It reinforces that even The President in our system is accountable for his actions before the law like any other citizen. A pretty nifty Democratic idea in my opinion. Personally, I would hate to see a President impeached and removed. If it came down to it, and impeachment seemed imminent, I would like to think that Clinton would resign out of respect to the Office.
And then Gore could pardon him for anything he may have done.... :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #14
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/15/98 2:02:31 AM
Sooz:
---------------
My question is, if the Paula Jones case was a bogus case anyway, what's it matter what occurred in that trial?
---------------
First off, the validity of a charge of perjury is independent of the outcome of the trial in which it was committed. Even if a case is dismissed, or a mistrial is declared, any witness who lies under oath is still subject to prosecution for perjury. It's a seperate offense, like reaching over an whacking the Judge with his gavel while you're on the witness stand.
Secondly, what if one of the reasons the Paula Jones case got thrown out was because of Clinton's false testimony? Raises the possibility that HAD he told the truth, the Paula Jones case might have had legs. Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, there you have it.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #15
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/15/98 2:19:14 AM
Gowan Sez:
---------------
All this because someone isn't allowed to say, "It's none of your business."
If I asked anyone here about your sex life, you could tell me it's none of my business. It's private. It's personal.
Apparently Bill Clinton doesn't have that right.
---------------
Sure he has that right. We all have that right. But not in court under oath. They kinda' frown on that. You can invoke your 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination though.
Prosecutor: "Mr. Kringle, did you infact bludgeon your wife's skull in with a 2 foot candycane?:
Mr. Kringle: "None of your business!"
Prosecutor (under his breath): "Damn, we almost had him!"
Response #16
By: sooz
Date: 9/15/98 7:50:04 AM
On that last note, yeah. Of course he wasn't allowed to say "It's none of your business." The question about him diddling the interns was pretty relevant in the Paula Jones case. If they were trying to prove a pattern of sexually harassment, why *should* he be allowed to say it's no one's biz?
I like to argue on both sides. It keeps me guessing.
Response #17
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/15/98 9:17:43 PM
It's sad, that's what it is. It's just SAD.
YES, they've probably got him on perjury. He might still be able to argue on semantics, i.e. the court defined "sexual relations" as "contact with sex organs with intent to arouse," but he didn't necessarily intend to aroused *her*... Oh sure, SHE had "sexual relations" with HIM, absolutely, but see, they didn't *ask* that. It could *still* be highly entertaining to see what unfolds....
But reading the report, in ADDITION to seeing a lousy husband, I see TWO people with a lot of blame to share for this affair, and I see a relationship more complex than just a casual fling. It certainly wasn't anything like the one-off incident alledged in the Paula Jones case.
And I see Linda Tripp and her publisher contacting Ken Starr or Paula Jones's lawyers or whoever, and effectively setting up an ambush in what otherwise was a meritless case (and if you believe the White House spin, which I admit I might, a case largely financed by Clinton detractors).
Then I see leaks, lotsa leaks, constant leaks.
And now I see all the details of supposedly secret grand jury testimony, and the President hasn't even been charged with anything yet.
This LOOKS a lot like that "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary spoke of.
And it LOOKS like they've finally GOT Clinton on something.
I'm just not sure the process was "due."
On another note, do you think Monica Lewinsky realized her testimony would be available for download by EVERYONE WHO MIGHT EVER DATE HER IN THE FUTURE? SHE's probably been damaged by this more than the President, and it'd be really cool if she's got legal grounds to sue the pants offa Ken Starr.
Response #18
By: Ralf
Date: 9/15/98 11:53:50 PM
The office of the president is not above the law. The President should be accountable for his/her actions. The President works for us, theoretically, and we the people should have ultimate authority regarding our employees.
And while "justice is blind" is a wonderful ideal, simply applying the rule of law without consideration is foolish. In fact, that's why judges are so important -- they make tough decisions every day. That's why we have concepts like "justifiable homicide". If justice was simply a matter of reading a rule book, then football referees would have the job.
And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't prosecute or impeach or whatever -- only that somebody in charge (please, not Ken Starr) evaluate the value of impeachment on such silly grounds. HE LIED ABOUT SEX for crissakes.
Is the juice worth the squeeze in this case? Perhaps a stern censure and/or stiff fine is in order. A nice red "A" tattooed on his forehead. But to spend millions of bucks and the next year impeaching him for this?? Somebody wiser than me needs to look at things impartially and decide what's best for the country. So far, everybody involved has an ulterior motive.
What we really need is a good old-fashioned war or terrorist bombing or stock-market crash to galvanize the country into realizing there's more to everything than WHO DIDDLED WHOM in the white house.
Response #19
By: sooz
Date: 9/16/98 9:49:17 AM
I'm real tired of "spend millions of bucks" whine. Clinton coulda saved us all this money 7 months ago by doing the unthinkable... telling the truth.
Follow me on this.
Ok, let's take out "sex" and insert "apple".
Clinton went to this trial a while back about whether he tried to eat someone's apples. While eating an apple is a perfectly legal thing to do, trying to get someone else's apples to munch on isn't. The president said nope, never even thought twice about Paula's apples. THe prosecution said "But, you have a history of eating apples. Didn't you eat Monica's apples, and she agreed to let you?" This would have been an ok thing to admit to, since eating Monica's offered apples was legal. But the Prez lied, and said "Monica's apples? Don't know what you're talking about." Paula's case was dismissed.
Turns out he lied big-time. It's been shown that he and Monica had a whole bunch of apple-eating sessions. Ok, so he admits it... and tries to focus blame on the millions of $ that were spent trying to catch him eating apples with Monica.
No, the act wasn't illegal. But the lying in court about it was.
This is only so touchy because it's about sex. Try to imagine it's about something else, and it kind of clears up.
Also, let's think past our noses. In the future, if another president perjures him/herself, what do we do? Seems the precedent would be to let it slide. yuck.
Response #20
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/16/98 6:19:53 PM
Ralf Sez:
-----------------------
And while "justice is blind" is a wonderful ideal, simply applying the rule of law without consideration is foolish. In fact, that's
why judges are so important -- they make tough decisions every day. That's why we have concepts like "justifiable homicide".
If justice was simply a matter of reading a rule book, then football referees would have the job.
And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't prosecute or impeach or whatever -- only that somebody in charge (please, not Ken Starr)
evaluate the value of impeachment on such silly grounds. HE LIED ABOUT SEX for crissakes.
------------------------
And that's what is being done. Ken Starr can only pass along the information he has gathered and suggest that there appears in HIS OPINION that there may be enough evidence to warrent impeachment. That is all Ken Starr can do. The rest is up to the Congress to invesitgate and decide on the merit of impeachment as is their Constitutional responsibility.
Ralf also Sez:
----------------------
Is the juice worth the squeeze in this case? Perhaps a stern censure and/or stiff fine is in order.
----------------------
Well a censure is actually what appears to be what has the most support in Congress at the moment, however that could change after the House Judiciary Committee completes their review of the Starr Report and presents their findings and recommendations to the full House. Besides, impeachment isn't the end of the line by any means. You've got to remember there is a whole involved formal process that has to be gone through in order to actually remove a sitting President or other official, it isn't that easy.
The House Judiciary Committee reviews the report and they issue articles of impeachment for any counts which they believe warrent consideration by the House. The House then has to vote on each article. If an article passes, then the President is impeached on that article. However, all this means is that the President goes on trial for the given offense. The trial is conducted in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding with all Senators to be under oath while in session. A 2/3 vote is required to convict for removal.
The House has examined between 60 to 70 people in the history of the Republic, and only actually impeached 14, and the Senate has only convicted 5 of those, all federal judges. Hell Andrew Johnson was impeached back in the late 1800's but the Senate failed to convict by one vote. And as you will probably remember, Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee's report, but before the House voted on the impeachment. So impeachment, much less convictions to removal, are very VERY rare. Even WITH heated politics. Despite popular opinion, heated partisan politics like we have now is NOT a new thing. It only seems like a new thing because it's all over TV.
So my guess is a censure is what will come of it. But whatever MAY come of it, it *IS* important that we ensure that every President, however much we may like or hate him/her has the same protection AND accountability under the law. I just don't see what in the world people can object to about this? It *IS* important, for now and the future. Maybe not our personal future, but the future of the Republic certainly.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #21
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/16/98 7:09:16 PM
Sooz Sez:
-------------------
This is only so touchy because it's about sex. Try to imagine it's about something else, and it kind of clears up.
Also, let's think past our noses. In the future, if another president perjures him/herself, what do we do? Seems the precedent
would be to let it slide. yuck.
-------------------
Here here!
Response #22
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/16/98 11:37:30 PM
Yah, let's substitute other terms, like 'arms for hostages,' or 'Nicaraguan drug trade.'
sooz, the precedent is already set. Clinton is only a bad president in that HE GOT CAUGHT.
Response #23
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 9/17/98 1:01:45 AM
I never thought I'd agree with Homer.
Someone mark this on their calendar.
My birthday and agreeing with Homer in the same day. Who'd have figured?
Response #24
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/17/98 5:08:19 PM
Happy birthday!
Umm, which day was your birthday.... you kinda posted that on the cusp, ya know? Like, we're you still in the mindset of "it's the end of the day" for the 16th, or was it TRULY, IN FACT, um... today?
Response #25
By: sooz
Date: 9/17/98 11:40:16 PM
I'll tell. On the 16th, our own Gowan turned 30.
Response #26
By: Ralf
Date: 9/23/98 11:40:44 AM
Youngster!
Response #27
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/23/98 2:07:39 PM
Meanwhile, on da Ken Starr tip:
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming social value under the public's 'right to know.' Pornography is pornography, regardless of the source." -Kenneth Starr, 1987, interview with Dianne Sawyer - 60 minutes
Response #28
By: rorschach
Date: 9/27/98 12:25:07 PM
homer, where do you get these quotes? this is EXCELLENT....
Response #29
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 9/27/98 11:05:57 PM
He makes them up like the rest of the media.
Response #30
By: sooz
Date: 9/28/98 9:08:36 AM
CBS has stated that Judge Starr never appeared on the show. [Wall Street Journal item, Friday, 9-25-98]
Apparently, he doesn't get them from a real good source.
Response #31
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/28/98 10:19:11 PM
Fiction is more truthful than journalism.
--kurt vonnegut, jr.
Response #32
By: Da Sissop
Date: 10/1/98 12:53:01 PM
Sooz: Are you saying that the Wall Street Journal saw Homer's quote?
"ˇYo Quiero Taco Bell in exchange for cocaine and weapons."
-- Ernesto "Che" WahWah, leader of the Gordita revolution, on 60 Minutes, November 16th, 1996
Response #33
By: sooz
Date: 10/2/98 10:07:02 AM
No, Sysman, I'm saying that the WSJ is familiar with the wide-spread misinformation that Homer found
Response #34
By: Da Sissop
Date: 10/7/98 6:42:07 PM
Impeach, and MOVE ON!
Uh, I mean, Censure, and MOVE ON!
Response #35
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/2/99 1:30:35 PM
Don't you just have to wonder if Ken Starr has EVER been laid in his life? And would anyone want to?
Ohhhhh Monica.......
Response #36
By: sooz
Date: 3/3/99 7:26:28 AM
Ooo ooo. I read something yesterday about GM being sued for those cars which, when hit in the ass-end, tend to blow up. Some GM engineer was caught lying re-re-repeatedly on the stand. His attorney, however, seemed to have a very different idea of what perjury was than he does now.
His attorney was Ken Starr.
Seems that your morals and ethics are determined by whoever pays the most.
Response #37
By: sooz
Date: 3/3/99 10:03:39 PM
Ok, I just watched a snipped of the Monica/Barbara Wawa interview. The one thing I liked is that she's not a skinny, anorexic, runway model-looking type... she looks NORMAL.
www.modemag.com
Response #38
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/3/99 11:07:05 PM
Ok sooz, you have me worried.
You think Monica looks normal?
That's almost like saying Linda Tripp looks like a woman!!!
Response #39
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/4/99 7:06:47 AM
I watched the interview, and I've decided that she's the woman I'm going to marry.
Response #40
By: Shadow Sprite
Date: 3/4/99 8:02:57 AM
Who? Baba Wawa or Linda Tripp? ...Too many names this early in the morning to keep up!
Response #41
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 3/4/99 8:10:19 AM
i liked the way barbara walters says "I don't want to get too personal."
Response #42
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/4/99 8:36:25 PM
"For those of our viewers who may not own phones or have not yet been told about sex, could you please give us some sort of definition of the term 'phone sex'?"
Response #43
By: sooz
Date: 3/4/99 10:13:06 PM
Monica's got some bodacious lips.
Response #44
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/5/99 12:06:55 AM
Not mention a whole mouthful of teeth...and she apparently knows how to use them.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #45
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/5/99 7:06:14 AM
Luscious red lips, sparkling white teeth, and she's been feeling blue....
I felt such patriotic stirrings.
Response #46
By: sooz
Date: 3/5/99 9:39:10 AM
Makes ya wanna wave a flag and bake an apple pie, doesn't it?
Response #47
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/8/99 11:28:58 PM
I was thnking about waving something, but a flag didn't quite come to mind.
Speaking of pie....
Response #48
By: sooz
Date: 3/9/99 1:28:05 PM
Do they have pie at Taco Bell?
Response #49
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 3/10/99 8:58:12 AM
The *very* best ad i ever saw was one for the Taco Bell steak burrito a few years back. It depicts a fat burrito with one end facing you, sour cream oozing out. Above that it says in pink neon letters, "Give into temptation!"
Response #50
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/10/99 2:27:13 PM
Gee, that wasn't a BIT Freudian is it?