Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (29602)	1/24/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Actually, your account here is remarkably inconsistent with the account in today's NYT. Strange, did your version come from Drudge or the Washington Times? According to this story, the very same people were behind the Brock article and the Jones lawsuit, right from the start. Funny how that worked. Marcus, Porter and Rosenzweig were classmates at the University of Chicago Law School, graduating in 1986. Conway met the others through the Jones case. Some of the lawyers were also involved with the Federalist Society, a legal group that includes conservative and libertarian luminaries like Starr, Robert H. Bork and Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor. Porter was the most overtly political member of the group, having worked on the staff of Vice President Quayle and on the Bush-Quayle campaign, where he did opposition research. Porter was also an associate of Peter W. Smith, 62, a Chicago financier who was once the chairman of College Young Republicans and a major donor to Gopac, a conservative political group affiliated with former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Beginning in 1992, Smith spent more than $80,000 to finance anti-Clinton research in an effort to persuade the mainstream press to cover Clinton's sex life. Among others, his efforts involved David Brock, the journalist who first mentioned the name "Paula" in an article on Clinton. Smith declined an interview request. In 1993, Brock said, Smith helped introduce him to the Arkansas state troopers who accused Clinton of using them to procure women when he was Governor of Arkansas. Brock wrote an article based on the troopers' account of Clinton's sexual escapades that was published in the January 1994 issue of The American Spectator, a conservative magazine. According to Brock, Smith wanted to establish a fund for the troopers, in case they suffered retribution. Brock said he opposed payments because they would undermine the troopers' credibility. To allay his concerns, Brock said, Smith urged him to speak to Porter, who was then working at Kirkland & Ellis, the Chicago law firm that employed Starr in its Washington office. Brock said he had hoped his talk with Porter would put an end to any planned payments to the troopers, but Smith did pay them and their lawyers $22,600. In 1992, Smith also paid Brock $5,000 to research another bit of Arkansas sex lore regarding Clinton, a rumor that has since proved to be baseless. Brock did not pursue an article. Brock's trooper article in The American Spectator mentioned a woman identified as "Paula," and in May 1994, Ms. Jones filed her lawsuit against President Clinton. Ms. Jones's lawyers of record were from the Washington area, Gilbert K. Davis and Joseph Cammarata, whom Marcus had helped recruit. (from nytimes.com I'm sure you know better, though, right Neocon? Paula Jones happened to be an avid reader of the American Spectator, and just had to come forward (at some right-wing convention, no less) to clear her (first) name after the nefarious Clintonistas planted that slur with Brock. Or something.

To: Neocon who wrote (29602)	1/24/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Neocon.. its refreshing to listen to a considered mind, not some of the driftwood that washes up around here. Your points are well taken and I wasn't aware of the timing in the Jones litigation. Do you know, if when "she came forward" she was doing so as a litigant or did lawyers find her when they became aware of her story? In my opinion Clinton should have offered an apology on the spot. Perhaps I'm of an older generation that realizes sexuality, however poorly expressed, isn't always attached to a dollar sign. I've had women drop their dresses and open their blouses. I even had a few late night calls of desperation. Should I go to court over the fact that people get physical. Maybe clothing should be banned for a week each year so we can get used to the fact that there's nudity inside the Ann Taylor and Brooks Brothers shells. That's part of life and God bless us for being sexual creatures. You're right, I stand corrected, Clinton was (as you say) elected by those who voted. Isn't that the same thing? Despite low voter turnout, broadly based polls still show him to doing well in the public's eye. Yes, Al Gore is a scary thought. He's been taking drama lessons and its not working. Look, its a tough, nasty world out there. It really is, try traveling overseas sometime. You'll find every kind of con-artist despot you can imagine and they don't care about your life, your property, or your rights. While I don't like Clinton in many respects, he's a tougher son of a bitch than we think. He's devoted to this country in a hundred ways few people realize and the world has a greater respect for him, and because of that for this country, than they do Congress or the Senate.