[Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question

Wed Jun 11 12:01:55 EDT 2003

Brad,

I agree, the impeachment proceedings were a real waste of time and money. 
And yes a few Officers and the top Non Com went down (no pun intended) for 
sexual offenses. In most of the cases I can recall (not all) there were 
complains filed against the offending military men. Monica never had any 
type of sexual harassment claim against Clinton. I realize that there were 
claims from other women but not Monica.  I thought the whole thing was blown 
(pun intended) out of proportion.

Wally

>From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question
>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Bill,
>
>If Bush lied to push his war agenda I'll be the first
>to call for his impeachment.  I think the evidence was
>there to make his case but others with a different
>agenda could probably have used the same data to make
>theirs.  Clinton, his cabinet, and both parties during
>his administration felt there were WMD in Iraq and now
>their words and votes are haunting them.
>
>I have read the Clinton Grand Jury testimony and
>watched most of the impeachment trial.  Frankly, I was
>dissapointed with the whole thing, a waste of time and
>taxpayer money.  What Bill does with his "Mr. Happy"
>is of no concern to me what-so-ever now that he is out
>of office and was of very little concern while he was
>in office.  But, several members of the military got
>fried for far less serious conduct that had a sexual
>overtone while he was Commander-in-Chief. I couldn't
>behave like that on my job and get away with it and
>neither could most folks.  Was it an impeachable
>offense?  Probably not.  I'm still disappointed that
>the press didn't do their job in 1991.  It didn't
>suprise me that Ken Starr failed his original mission.
>  If I sat down with my corporate pilot buddies from
>Little Rock and started connecting the dots from
>everything we saw and heard from the period of 1978 to
>1985 we could put together 95% of what really
>happened.  Avoiding that last 5% is why he earned the
>moniker "Slick Willy" and he had it long before he
>became President.
>
>Hopefully Hillary will run in 2004 or 2008.  I still
>want her to share that commodity trading program that
>no one in the history of commodity trading has been
>able to duplicate.  The Rose Law Firm put a lot of
>bread on my table during my last two years of college
>at UALR, Most of those folks were nice people.  The
>senior partner, Joe Gior (my most frequent client)went
>bankrupt, Vince Foster died, Hillary (never flew her)
>got a little creative with billing (just another
>Arkansas method of funding candidates) but most were
>just hard working, honest attorneys.  Thats no joke.
>
>Run, Hillary Run!
>
>Brad
>--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > Brad,
> >
> > I really, really, hope this question will not
> > degenerate into the question "If Clinton lied about
> > a blow job, is it OK for Bush to lie about a war?"
> >
> > Have you ever read the Clinton Grand Jury testimony?
> >
> > Most people have not.  I think you'll find it quite
> > interesting.
> >
> > First of all, everyone was lying.  They had quite a
> > cast of characters.   People couldn't remember if
> > they were fired from their last job.  They couldn't
> > remember accusations made against them.  etc.
> >
> > Then Clinton gets asked a sex question with no
> > direct bearing on the matter at hand.  His attorneys
> > object.  The question is rephrased in the negative.
> > It is so convoluted that it is written down and
> > handed to Clinton who is asked if he understands the
> > question.  He says he thinks he does.  He is told to
> > answer yes or no.  His lawyers again object, telling
> > the judge it has become the "Do you still beat your
> > wife?" question--Clinton will be accused of lying no
> > matter how he answers the question.  The judge
> > insists that he answer the question.
> >
> > The question permitted was "Have you had intercourse
> > with Monica Lewinski?"  To which, it would seem,
> > Clinton could have honestly answered "no".  The
> > question asked was "Have you had sex with Monica
> > Lewinski?" with a paragraph long definition of "sex"
> > that explicitly excluded, for the purpose of this
> > answer in this court at this time, blow jobs among
> > other things.  Clinton seemingly truthfully answered
> > "no".
> >
> > This was a set up, and I think you know it.  The
> > testimony was never supposed to become public, but
> > of course it did.  If you look at his public
> > statements around this time, for a while he was able
> > to tap dance around the truth, saying, truthfully,
> > things like "Under the definition of sex as provided
> > to me in my Grand Jury testimony I can honestly say
> > that I never had sex with Monica Lewinski..."
> >
> > Then he got sloppy and started to rely on implied
> > disclaimers.  I will not, for one moment, try to
> > defend this.  It was dumb.  It was dumb to get
> > backed into this situation.  Knowing what he knew,
> > he would have been smarter to settle earlier, even
> > if he knew the charges against him amounted to
> > extortion, and would lead to more frivolous suits.
> >
> > To answer my own question: no, I do not think it is
> > OK to lie about blow jobs.  I do not think it is ok
> > to lie about war.  I do think you agree.
> >
> > Bill Effros
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: brad haslett
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question
> >
> >
> > Here's a link to a Rich Lowry column that addresses
> > your issue.
> >
> >
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030603.shtml
> >
> > Here's a link to a letter written to President
> > Clinton
> > from the authors of the Iraqi Liberation Act.
> > Written
> > by the Senators who authored the bill from both
> > parties I might add.
> >
> > http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
> >
> > Here's a link to a Washington columnist on the
> > issue.
> >
> >
>Tihttp://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-8562r.htmmes
> >
> >
> > You don't like Bush, fine!  Don't vote for him.
> > But,
> > may I politely suggest that before you jump to the
> > conclusion that he somehow lied, do some homework.
> > Just because Clinton could look straight faced into
> > the camera and lie (remember he was impeached for it
> > and lost his license to practice law) doesn't mean
> > everyone is so careless with the truth.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> >
> > --- FNuttersNY at aol.com wrote:
> > > We do no this,  we were lied to AGAIN by those  in
> > > powere who have their own
> > > agenda and are hell bent to carry it out
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to
> > Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail