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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/25/1999 9:00:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

How about soliciting false affidavits and representing to the Court that they are correct? How would you feel about that? JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/25/1999 9:23:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Did your ex disappear and didn't give you child support? Why are you fixing him up with a date if he's gone?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/25/1999 9:36:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 67261

crowd can't even waiver one little bit I guess I suspect the crowd more as an active conspiracy than a group so principaled that they cannot waver. The allegations are saved and sprung much too regularly to be chance. TP

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/25/1999 10:25:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>The wierdest thing to me is how the "truth and justice" crowd can't even waiver one little bit on a stupid lie about an affair…< Because it was not just a stupid lie about an affair, Michelle. Had Clinton admitted his lie early on, this entire matter would have died, at the most Clinton would have been fined a symbolic amount for the transgression. But Clinton displayed a clear pattern of deception, a flagrant and repeated deception that included everyone around him and that was supported by the power and credibility of his high office. Clinton most certainly obstructed justice and insulted the intelligence of the entire country. He continued to lie to a Federal Grand Jury and he continues to lie today. This is not simply a matter of a stupid lie about an affair. The people on the left tell us they condemn Clinton and then tell us it was just a stupid lie. They speak with forked tongues. >[adultery is] something the vast majority of people would lie about, where lying was the honorable thing to do…< I simply cannot believe you actually think repeatedly lying to a civil court of law, to a Federal Grand Jury and to the American people about adultery, this, in the effort to deny a fair trial to another American is an honorable thing. This is entirely dishonorable. > - oh but forget the truth when it comes to all these false affidavits.< Lying in the affidavit is indeed dishonorable, but we can surely understand that Broaddrick's motives were by no means as deviant as those of Clinton. Moreover, under our legal system she received immunity for her lies in order to get to the subject of the investigation. Lastly, unlike Clinton, Broaddrick has flatly admitted to lying. I believe her admission. Were Clinton to do the same, I would most certainly believe him also. There is not nearly as much of a reason to dismiss Broaddrick as there is to dismiss Clinton, yet some on the left are hell bound to worship Clinton and call Broaddrick a lying slut. I think this most telling and most reprehensible.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/25/1999 11:34:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 67261

DOROTHY RABINOWITZ : is the lady that went to interview Juanita Broaddrick at her house for the Wall Street Journal. She has specialized in defending people that are wrongly accused of rape, and was made famous for her work in Florida defending parents and care takers that were falsely accused of abusing kids. She has little doubt that Juanita is telling the truth. Abuse probes can fuel hysteria, says critic By DAVID RUMBACH Tribune Staff Writer SOUTH BEND--The American zeal to protect children from molesters and sexual abusers sometimes gets out of hand. When it does, civil rights and the rule of reason and law themselves become the victims of monstrous abuse, a physician and a journalist said in lectures Wednesday at St. Joseph's Medical Center. Dr. Thomas G. Irons, a pediatrician and professor at the East Carolina School of Medicine, and Dorothy Rabinowitz, a journalist, spoke about injustice in the prosecution of child abuse cases. Both have spoken up in defense of accused child abusers--and against mass hysteria--in high-profile cases. And they've both paid the price. "It was the darkest day of my life,'' Irons said, of his testimony for the defense in the Little Rascals Day Care trial in Edenton, N.C., 1993. "The bizarre madness and the palpable hatred in that courtroom is something I'll never forget,'' said Irons. Rabinowitz, now an editorial board member for the Wall Street Journal, exposed serious weaknesses in the evidence used in the famous Wee Care case in Sussex County, N.J., in 1988. In a 1990 article in Harper's magazine, she showed how therapist-interviews had browbeaten children into fabricating accusations against a female care-giver named Margaret Kelly Michaels. Much of the other evidence in the case was equally suspect. Parents testified about changes in diet and the onset of bed-wetting as evidence their children had been abused. All are normal problems of childhood. "The willingness of the helping professions--doctors, nurses, therapists and others--to lie and to stretch the truth, and to subvert science, was the most disturbing thing to me,'' Rabinowitz said. Most of the convictions in the two cases have been overturned. But the damage to the lives and reputations of those accused can never be restored, said Irons, who said he testifies against accused child abusers much more often than for the defense. And while better standards for interviewing children have been established, many people continue to be unjustly accused on the basis of weak evidence and strong emotion, he said. "People are sitting in jail now who shouldn't be,'' he said. Both the Wee Care and Little Rascals involved a type of accusation now generally discredited: the idea that a group of people can abuse of children in a public setting over a long time without being detected. And the interview techniques used in the investigations have also been discredited. Therapist-interviewers continued interviewing the young children until they finally joined in the accusations. The therapists used suggestive questions and ignored repeated assertions that nothing had happened to the children. Moreover, parents of the children discussed the case freely as the investigation unfolded, leading to "contamination'' of the evidence. Soon after word got out in the Little Rascals case that a child had said he was abused with a scissors, other children picked up the story and said the same. Mike Gotsch, a deputy prosecutor in St. Joseph County, moderated the discussion. He said that, in local child abuse cases, children are interviewed only once and that the interrogators are taught to "follow, never lead'' in their line of questioning. The interviews always are videotaped. Reforms like that, Rabinowitz said, have helped to end the era of false cases of mass abuse. Nonetheless, she said, the warped side of America's zeal to protect children still surfaces from time to time. Cases based on repressed memories of child abuse are one example, she said. Another, she claimed, is the new emphasis on prosecution of "shaken baby syndrome'' cases. "Now, any baby that dies of a head injury has been shaken by their parents, no matter what,'' she said.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/26/1999 2:34:00 AM
From: nuke44	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't claim to be an arbiter of "truth and justice" but at the same time I don't see how that could be a bad thing. I'm not a Christian fundamentalist. As a matter of fact, I don't profess to belong to any religion at all. My motives are a little more basic. Bill Clinton is a power hungry sociopath that believes he is above the law. His goals of "it takes a village" wealth redistribution, and his attempts to rewrite the Bill of Rights to reflect his opposition to the rights and power of the individual and to make the federal government the "Be All and End All" of our existence are diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. Add to this the fact that Clinton fancies himself as "Grand Poobah for Life" (repeal of the 22nd amendment) doling out favors or punishment as he sees fit and I think my motives for opposing Clinton at every turn are justified, if not as lofty as seeking "truth and justice". Speaking of motives; therein lies the difference in Clinton's "stupid little lie" and the false affidavit of a rape victim. Clinton's motive was simple. He was perjuring himself in order to win a civil rights lawsuit. How the hell was that entrapment? He would have been successful at it, had he not been called to account for it by the special prosecutor. Clinton could have saved us all a lot of time and money by telling the truth in the first place instead of perjuring himself and then paying his accuser $800k in an out of court settlement to shut her up. On the other hand the false affidavit was signed by someone who saw nothing to gain by placing herself in conflict with a ruthless politician who just happened to be in a position to ruin her life as he has ruined the lives of so many others that dared to cross him. Compared to Clinton, Nixon was a babe in the woods when it came to the use of political power as a blunt object.. He has used the IRS and the Justice Department much as Hitler used the Brown Shirts and later the Gestapo to silence or discredit his political enemies. My opposition to Beelzebubba is very real and reflects my true beliefs. It is not a whim or founded on supposition. It is based on what I know about him. He is the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime and possibly the harbinger of the decline of this country into nothing more than a chapter or two in future history books. I can't believe that there are people out there that don't see Clinton for what he is. I mean, not only does this emperor not have any clothes, he's also sporting a raging hard-on as he parades down the boulevard. The fact that people know what he is and still support him causes me to wonder what their motives are.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35856)	2/26/1999 4:51:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<The wierdest thing to me is how the "truth and justice" crowd can't even waiver one little bit on a stupid lie about an affair...>> The wierdest thing to me Michelle is how you can expect anyone to accept this statement to be truthful after all the months of following this thread. A stupid lie...I am not saying lying isn't stupid but bill clinton has developed deception to a high level form of art of which I can identify no living person his equal. About an affair...This is the main point of the debate on this thread to which you have never responded. No one who criticizes bill clinton considers the issue bound to one little lie about a personal and private sexual matter. Nor on the basis of your frequent posts, do you. As with past powerful men who are corrupt with the belief that they can wield power over the world; this man behaves as if he is too clever to be held to the same standards as mere commoners. He has operated under a very deceitful, corrupt, and illegitimate instrumentality to manifest his supremacy. Individuals, foundational principle, institutions standing for coequality, and bushido, have all fell in the wake of his contrivance. The exposure of his corrupt and abusive personality may have come to light to many through this gossipy mess but the "truth and justice" crowd is concerned far beneath this petty thin layer of venere.