SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ksuave who wrote (16577)6/28/1998 11:44:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Respond to of 20981
 
Those polls mean nothing as people admit they haven't been paying attention.

Further, as the corrupt Clinton WH knows, those polls indicate less support for Clinton than Nixon had a similar point in Watergate.



To: ksuave who wrote (16577)6/28/1998 11:44:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 20981
 
New York Times debunks U.S. News and Brill's shilling for corrupt Clinton White House:

June 28, 1998

Tripp to Tell Grand Jury of Tape Recordings

Related Articles
Coverage of the President Under Fire

Forum
Join a Discussion on Starr's Investigation of President Clinton

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON -- They have heard her voice for months, but on
Tuesday morning, the 23 men and women serving on a federal
grand jury here will finally meet Linda Tripp. As the Pentagon employee
explains why she chose to betray a friend, the grand jurors will have an
opportunity to weigh her motives and credibility by looking in her eyes.

It was Mrs. Tripp's surreptitious taping of Monica Lewinsky's conversations
that began an independent counsel's investigation into President Clinton's
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern. Now, Mrs.
Tripp will tell the grand jury whether she was seeking to protect the truth, as
she has maintained, or hoping to exploit a sensational tale to write a tell-all
book, as her critics have suggested.

Perhaps as much as any single piece of evidence, Mrs. Tripp's story -- and
how the grand jury reacts to it -- could determine the fate of the inquiry by
Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel. Her much-anticipated testimony
comes at a critical moment in the investigation, as Starr's office has been
negotiating with Ms. Lewinsky's new legal team on an immunity deal. If a
deal falls through, Ms. Lewinsky could soon face indictment and Mrs. Tripp
would become the star witness against her.

That would make Mrs. Tripp's credibility and motives particularly important
and sure to come under fierce attack by Ms. Lewinsky's lawyers.

In public statements, Mrs. Tripp has insisted that she recorded some of her
conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to corroborate the truth about her friend's
sexual relationship with the president in case she was called to testify in the
Paula Corbin Jones civil lawsuit against Clinton.

"Linda is ready to tell the truth about the facts as she knows them," said
Anthony Zaccagnini, Mrs. Tripp's lawyer. "She is anxious to get this over and
behind her so that she can move on with her life."

Until now, the grand jurors have formed their impressions of Mrs. Tripp by
listening to excerpts of nearly 20 hours of conversations she secretly
recorded last autumn with Ms. Lewinsky, whom she befriended when the
intern was transferred to the Pentagon from the White House. According to
lawyers familiar with the inquiry, the grand jury has heard Mrs. Tripp urge
Ms. Lewinsky to tell the lawyers in the Jones sexual harassment case the
truth about her relationship with the president.

Unlike the grand jurors, the public has been privy to only a handful of
quotations from about four hours of Mrs. Tripp's tapes, and those tend to
cast her in a negative light. In snippets of their conversations published in two
weekly news magazines, Mrs. Tripp is portrayed as having manipulated Ms.
Lewinsky's behavior.

But the most important tape has not been heard outside the grand jury room,
nor has it been disclosed publicly. That is the recording made by Starr's
prosecutors of Mrs. Tripp's meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on Jan. 13, four
days before Clinton denied under oath in the Jones lawsuit that he had ever
had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.

On that two-and-a-half-hour tape, made at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in
Pentagon City, Va., a suburb of Washington, Ms. Lewinsky makes
statements "damaging" to Clinton and his longtime friend, Vernon Jordan,
according to two people who have listened to it.

Over an afternoon snack of tea and cookies, Mrs. Tripp asks Ms. Lewinsky
to describe her conversations with Jordan about finding a job, as well as her
conversations with the president.

In an anguished voice that at times borders on "hysterical," Ms. Lewinsky
herself insists that she feels she must "deny" she had a relationship with
Clinton, and she repeatedly urges Mrs. Tripp to deny any knowledge of it,
too, the two people said. (More than once, Mrs. Tripp refuses to lie about
their relationship and says she plans to tell the truth.)

But at the same time, Ms. Lewinsky says that she would deny her
relationship with Clinton in a signed affidavit in the Jones lawsuit only if she
obtains a lucrative job with the help of Jordan, according to one of the two
people.

The Ritz-Carlton tape was used by Starr's prosecutors to persuade Attorney
General Janet Reno to authorize an expansion of Starr's investigation to
include an inquiry into whether the president committed perjury or obstructed
justice. Since late January, the grand jury here has examined whether Clinton
or anyone else urged Ms. Lewinsky to lie to the Jones lawyers, and whether
efforts to find her a job were meant to insure her silence.

Both Clinton and Jordan have denied that they told Ms. Lewinsky or anyone
else to lie.

In an article this week in U.S. News & World Report, which reviewed two
hours of tapes, Mrs. Tripp comes across as a manipulative, overbearing
woman who tries to guide and shape Ms. Lewinsky's answers through
leading questions.

The magazine said, for example, that Mrs. Tripp "appears to encourage
Lewinsky's obsession" with the president, telling her on the tapes that she
should insist to Betty Currie, the president's secretary, that she must see the
president. And it said that on parts of the tapes, Mrs. Tripp "also seems to
be encouraging Lewinsky to ask the president for a job."

The U.S. News account supports the impression, conveyed in a lengthy
article two weeks ago in Brill's Content, a new magazine on the media, that
publication of the scandal was orchestrated by Mrs. Tripp and Lucianne
Goldberg, a New York literary agent, with the help of Michael Isikoff, a
Newsweek correspondent.

Explaining that Isikoff wanted tangible evidence beyond the tapes to verify a
presidential affair, Ms. Goldberg is quoted in the article as saying: "We told
Linda to suggest that Monica use a courier service to send love letters to the
president. And we told her what courier service to use. Then we told
(Isikoff) to call the service" to ask for receipts.

To Mrs. Tripp's legal team, it is not a coincidence that an unflattering portrait
of Mrs. Tripp emerged not long before her scheduled appearance before the
grand jury. They say they believe it represents an effort by the president's
defenders to malign Mrs. Tripp.

Questions about Mrs. Tripp's motives had been raised before, usually by the
president's defenders. In 1996, they point out, Mrs. Tripp was trying to write
a book about the Clinton scandals with Ms. Goldberg, who has made no
secret of her anti-Clinton bias. Mrs. Tripp's working title for her book was
"Behind Closed Doors: What I Saw at the Clinton White House." Her
working nom de plume was "Joan Dean," after John Dean, the aide in the
Nixon White House.

Although the tapes that have been made public seem to reinforce the
impression that Mrs. Tripp had ulterior motives, people who have heard all
20 hours of the tapes say that this is a misimpression. Like any smattering of
verbal exchanges between two people, the quotes published so far do not
completely reflect the complexity of the women's relationship, they say.

"All of these quotes are taken out of context," said another person who has
heard most of the tapes. "It is impossible to understand their whole
relationship by looking at an hour or two hours of conversations, which
amount to nothing more than 1 percent of all their conversations about the
subject."

The person said, "These women talked about this for hundreds of hours; it's
all they talked about."

Starr has tried to corroborate the details in the tape-recorded conversations
between Mrs. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky. According to lawyers familiar with
the inquiry, Starr's prosecutors have gone to great lengths to confirm almost
everything said on the tapes, including going to court to fight for the right to
subpoena records of Ms. Lewinsky's book purchases. On tape, Ms.
Lewinsky talks about buying books for Clinton, including "Vox," a novel by
Nicholson Baker about phone sex.

Since her name has become a household word, Mrs. Tripp has stayed
mostly out of the public eye. She has spent many hours preparing for her
grand jury appearance, which had originally been scheduled for the first
week of June, but was called off at the last minute after Ms. Lewinsky
dismissed her original lawyer, William Ginsburg, and hired the Washington
lawyers Plato Cacheris and Jacob Stein.

Mrs. Tripp released just one public statement, in late January, when she
insisted that she made the recordings to protect her reputation after Robert
Bennett, the president's personal lawyer, declared last summer, "Linda Tripp
should not be believed." In an August 1997 issue of Newsweek, Mrs. Tripp
had described seeing a White House volunteer, Kathleen Willey, leave the
Oval Office after Ms. Willey claimed she had fended off an unwanted sexual
advance by the president.

It was Bennett's challenge to her credibility that inspired Mrs. Tripp to make
the tape recordings of her talks with Ms. Lewinsky, an account she is
prepared to tell the grand jury on Tuesday morning, her friends say. To her,
the grand jury appearance, expected to last three days, represents the
opportunity to set the record straight.

"I think there have been unfair characterizations," one friend said this week
about the most recent tape recordings made public. "We always anticipated
that the White House spin would be a 40-some-year-old woman has
exercised too much control over a 24-year-old girl."

nytimes.com



To: ksuave who wrote (16577)6/28/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: George Coyne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
<< US poll shows public disgust with Starr investigation >>

Do you feel that the American justice system should be influenced in any manner by public opinion polls?

G. W.



To: ksuave who wrote (16577)6/28/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: Colin Cody  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
There has been no attempt by the media to explain the divergence between public opinion and their own incessant scandal-mongering. For more than five months, the major networks and newspapers have bombarded the public with sensationalized reports, for the most part damaging to the White House and supportive of Starr.
.
I take it you are another blind "Clinton lover at any cost"?
.
If the media found that people DID NOT tune-in to watch, listen or read "their own incessant scandal-mongering" then, being TOTALLY RATINGS DRIVEN they would switch to much lighter coverage of those developments.
.
Only LYING Clinton Blowhards spin the yarn that their boy in the White House is the best thing to happen to Amerika since sliced bread.
.
That description fit you?
.
Colin




To: ksuave who wrote (16577)6/30/1998 8:44:00 AM
From: Catfish  Respond to of 20981
 
HATE CRIMES --- HATE SPEECH

Or, should we say ..... "Thought Crimes."

Neal Boortz

November 11, 1997

One of the newest buzz phrases for the liberal intelligencia of late has been "hate crimes." On November 19, 1997 Bill Clinton addressed the issue, saying that we needed to expand federal authority in the area, particularly in relationship to hate crimes against gays and handicapped people.

Yes, once again, the man who told us that "the era of big government is over" calling for yet more Federal involvement in our lives .... and, in this case, in our very thought processes.

If there is a problem here crying for a federal solution, let us first try to determine just what the problem is. What is a hate crime? How does a hate crime differ from a regular ordinary, run-of-the-mill every day crime? If a person is killed in a hate crime is he more or less dead than someone simply killed for their money or car? Does the family of the person killed in a carjacking take comfort in the fact that at least it wasn't a hate crime? Is the person who kills out of hate or prejudice any more dangerous to our society than a simple predator who kills for drugs or to get someone else's property?

There is one thing that differentiates a regular crime from a hate crime. That would be the state of mind of the person committing a crime. In other words . the thought processes of the person committing the crime.

The crime is in the action taken against a person or property, not the "why" behind the action.

Face it .... what we are seeing here is a codification of political correctness.

Let's change the verbiage a bit. We're not really talking about hate crimes here. We're talking about thought crimes. In the minds of the proponents of hate crime legislation, a random act of violence against an individual takes on increased seriousness if certain thought processes are involved. If the thought process are not politically acceptable, It becomes a hate crime. We have a thought crime piggybacking on a crime against a person or property. A person is being punished, or is having the punishment increased, depending on what they were thinking.

A big problem with hate crime laws is that they create different classes of victims. If someone attacks me because they want my car, and I'm murdered, the punishment may be less and the category of crime would be different than if someone attacks a gay man and murders him because they don't like gay men. In both cases, murder committed, man dead. But my murder is somehow less egregious than the murder of the homosexual. Somehow, and I hope you'll excuse me for this insensitivity, but I just don't see it that way.

In a society where equal protection under the law is supposed to be the noble standard, there is no room to create different classes of victims. Hate crime legislation places a different government-assigned value on the life, liberty and property rights of people based on their color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin physical ability or whatever.

Clinton says "All Americans deserve protection from hate."

What? Do we suddenly have another right here? The right to be protected from hate? Let's add this to the right to a job, the right to a living wage, the right to a condo, the right to breast implants and the right to a satisfying sex life.

It is so nice to know that I now have the right not to be hated, and that Bill Clinton is ready to bring the full force of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States to bear on anyone who dares to dislike me. After all, I "deserve" it. The next time someone says they hate me, what should I do? Should I swear out a warrant? Is it a federal crime, or just a local ordinance? How will the person be punished? Can I sue them? What if someone just says they hate my show? Do I deserve to be protected from that?

Let's try to get just a bit serious here. Hating me is not a violation of my rights. I have no right to be loved. I have no right to be liked. I have not right not to be hated. It is not the role of the federal government to keep me from being hated .. Or to protect me from hate. It is the role of government to seek to apprehend and prosecute those who deprive me of life, liberty or property, whether it's out of hate or just a desire for my stuff. The offender should be prosecuted for the crime they have committed. (Followed by, in all probability, a slap on the wrist and a few minutes of community service.) What they happen to think about me is absolutely beside the point.

Remember, too . in the midst of all of this discussion on hate crimes . there seems to be a new definition of "hate" coming from the left. We are used to hearing a lot about hate crimes. Now we add the category of "hate speech."

Clinton has used this "hate speech" phrase quite a bit, particularly in reference to people who are critical of his Presidency. Clinton, of course, is particularly upset with talk radio. (I take that as a point of pride.) Talk radio is an element of the media that is not permeated with left-wing extremists suffering from obsessive-compulsive-compassion disorder. . Clinton as much as blamed talk radio for the failure of his grand government takeover of health care. The new word, then, for talk radio is ... Hate Radio!

Listen to liberals who are under fire from the right. Instead of responding in a logical and rational manner to the criticisms that are being brought, they talk about "hate speech."

It is easy why they chose to hide behind this "hate speech" nonsense. How convenient .. Someone criticizes you or a program you support. You are faced with the task of responding to the criticism. Responding might require an exercise in logic .. something liberals are particularly bad at. So, if valid points are brought up --- points that you don't particularly want to deal with, just brand the comments as "hate speech" and proudly proclaim your determination not to respond. How noble and wonderfully sensitive it sounds "I won't dignify that hate speech with a response."

We are coming to the point where any conservative principal or statement is simply dismissed, both by the liberals and their dog washers in the media, as being hate speech. Once you've called it hate, you no longer have to deal with it. It is all too simple.

With the big push in Washington to deal with "hate crimes," and Clinton's pronouncement that all Americans deserved to be protected from hate .. How long is it before dissent to the Washington Status quo will, in and of itself, become a crime?

-----

Now ... go ahead and print this out and share it with your friends. Send it by e-mail all over the internet ...to elected officials and porn stars .. anybody. Just be sure you tell em where you got it. From Neal Boortz at boortz.com.