On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:21:59 +0000, WaIIy wrote:

On 05 Nov 2003 16:20:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Tripp was guilty of illegally taping a phone conversation without the
other party's consent.

This is a prime example of leftist revisionist history.

The clinton buddies took her to court, remember?

It was not illegal. Please quit making things up because you want them
that way.

The charges against Linda Tripp were dismissed, but, in Maryland, taping
another person without their permission, *is* illegal. I don't believe
Chuck was using the word "guilty" as in a court of law. We all know that
Clinton was "guilty" of adultery. We didn't need a court to tell us that.

On 05 Nov 2003 06:10:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Let's look in Google and see:
Pathetic



Yes, Wally, your lie was pathetic.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Instead of questioning his ethincs, the people instead viewed the
investigation as a "smear tactic".

Here Dave's subconscious is witnessed in a mortal struggle with his
conscious mind. Is it about ethics or ethnicity?

The FBI made a miscalculation in deciding to leak information the major was
under investigation. I'm sure plenty of people saw this (and rightly so) as
a smear tactic. The FBI couldn't have timed his "leaked investigation" any
better to have a whiplash effect on the election.

Proof the American people have diminishing faith in government.

Dave, good luck with your struggle.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:35:45 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:
Monica was a
young impressionable intern taken in by the most powerful man in the
World...all for his sexual gratification, then denying it ever happened.

================================================== ==

Oh stop, total BS. Monica was as willing as Bill was able. I agree
with Chuck on this one, Linda Tripp saw fame and fortune ahead,
friendship and personal confidence be damned. It could be argued that
Bill was doing nothing more than protecting reputations - his and
Monicas. Monica of course kept the dress around and was more than a
bit indiscreet. Not too bright, but who was to know how it would turn
out?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:35:45 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:
Monica was a
young impressionable intern taken in by the most powerful man in the
World...all for his sexual gratification, then denying it ever happened.

================================================== ==

Oh stop, total BS. Monica was as willing as Bill was able. I agree
with Chuck on this one, Linda Tripp saw fame and fortune ahead,
friendship and personal confidence be damned. It could be argued that
Bill was doing nothing more than protecting reputations - his and
Monicas. Monica of course kept the dress around and was more than a
bit indiscreet. Not too bright, but who was to know how it would turn
out?


I seem to remember it was not a charge involving Monica L. Was a charge and
suit in court regards Paula Jones and Sexual Harassment. Monica was just
another example of WJC's predatory desires on not so beautiful women. And
the LIE was in the court where WJC was being sued for telling a state
employee that was not willing like Kneepads Lewinski to have sex with the
boss to have sex with him.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 04:21:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
I seem to remember it was not a charge involving Monica L. Was a charge and
suit in court regards Paula Jones and Sexual Harassment. Monica was just
another example of WJC's predatory desires on not so beautiful women. And
the LIE was in the court where WJC was being sued for telling a state
employee that was not willing like Kneepads Lewinski to have sex with the
boss to have sex with him.
============================
Yes, that was the legal perjury but not the "lie" that was being
discussed here. Bill had problems, no question about it. Putting
politics and his personal indiscretions aside however, I thought he
had good leadership qualities.

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Instead of questioning his ethincs, the people instead viewed the
investigation as a "smear tactic".

Here Dave's subconscious is witnessed in a mortal struggle with his
conscious mind. Is it about ethics or ethnicity?

The FBI made a miscalculation in deciding to leak information the mayor was
under investigation.

Get your facts straight. No one "leaked" anything. A bug was discovered
in the mayor's office during a security sweep. A bug which required a
federal judge to approve. A judge does not grant approval lightly. There
has to be ample evidence. This investigation has been on going for 2
years now.

I'm sure plenty of people saw this (and rightly so) as
a smear tactic.

They did see it that way, but they were wrong, and had they the
intelligence to consider and understand the legal process, they'd
understand why they were wrong.


The FBI couldn't have timed his "leaked investigation" any
better to have a whiplash effect on the election.

Typical liberal. Everything is a conspiracy. The election is over, but
the investigation is still going. Time will tell what comes out of it.


Proof the American people have diminishing faith in government.

True, and thanks to liberal indoctrination, the people have become
paranoid.

Sometimes an investigation is truly an investigation.

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

I find it amusing in a warped sort of pathetic way how the left would
spend so much time actively demoninzing the whistle blower, than in the
object of the crime itself.

Ok, let's compa

Clinton, (at this point) was guilty of adultery. A "crime," technically, and
one that effected little more than his marriage.
He was also guilty of bad judgment, (having an affiar with an employee), and
some would say poor taste in women.

Tripp was guilty of illegally taping a phone conversation without the other
party's consent. A definite crime. Isn't it a Class C felony? She was also
guilty of betraying a friend's confidence, merely to be able to publicize a
scandal.

What you call "publicizing a scandel" I call providing evidence of an
inpropriety.



If someone alerts the authorities that a
crime or inpropriety has been committed, they should be commended for
shining the light on in.

Do your turn in all your friends and neighbors every time you observe an
"impropriety"? I doubt it.

I would if it were as serious as to involve the president of the
country.



You dislike Linda Tripp, because it was the final brick that brought
down Clinton.

???????????????

Clinton was "brought down" by the expiration of his second term. His popularity
remained so high that if he had been able to run for a third term, he'd still
be POTUS today.

His popularity was never as high as Bush's. I doubt if he would've won a
third term. People were pretty much disgusted with his philandering and
other shady dealings. Part of the reason that Bush won was that ther
people were sick of Clinton/Gore, and saw Gore as an extention of
Clinton.



I lost my enthusiam for Clinton when he lied about the nature
of his relationship with Monica, but the majority of the country did not.

Where do you live? Most of the people in my area lost "enthusiasm" for
Clinton the week after his first term started. His record was not all
that stellar. Gay's in the military, a failed attempt at socialized
medical care, and NAFTA, were his biggest achievements. Then there was
the issue of China.....


Would you be so harsh if Linda Tripp suddenly brought
forth evidence that would bring down GW Bush?

You don't get it at all. Tripp's issue was that she sold out a friend.
She...sold out...a....friend....... Is that OK as long as it damages a
Democratic politcian?

It's ok as long as she helped to thwart a crime. If I had a fried who
robbed a bank, and I found out about it. Do I keep his secret (And by
doing so become a willing accomplice) or report him to the LEO? What
would you do?


GW Bush in is the midst of self destructing. Nobody needs to "bring him down".
His cabinet may save him. We'll just have to see.

No human should be expected to know all possible outcomes in any
situation. GWB made the right decision. Despite all the mud that power
hungry democrats may be slinging, in their irresponsible attempt to
seize political power at the expense of our military and the people, the
president made the right decision. Some of the reasons may be a little
less than clear cut, but it have to be done. If not now, then eventually
much later, when our military advantage would not be as great.

I know, it's trick question. If you answer it no, then you are branded
as a hypocritical partisan. Answer yes, and you become the poster boy
for the growing trend toward rejection of justice by people who think
that some people have a right to "get away" with shady dealings.

If I answer that selling out a friend, merely to reveal a scandalous adultery
by a third party, is a low-life thing to do, what then?

Then you reveal that confidences are more important to you, than
following the law.



Just like the Mayor's race here in Philly, the fact that the mayor was a
subject of a federal investigation, made people want to vote for him.
Instead of questioning his ethincs, the people instead viewed the
investigation as a "smear tactic".

Could have been. I don't know the particulars. Wouldn't have been the first
time such a technique was used if it was a smear.

Some people would rather have a crook
in office, than support the agencies who prosecute those indiscretions.



How is he a crook? What has he been convicted of? Why is "supporting the
agencies" autmatically a better choice than examining the facts and trying to
draw an informed conclusion?

The conclusions were drawn alright. Unfortunately they were not based on
the facts, the evidence, or any logical basis. The conclusiuons were
automatically made that the investigation was a farce, and a smear
tactic, and given the double shot of being both partisan and racist (The
mayor is black). No consideration was given to the fact that the bug
planted by the feds had to be approved by a judge, and that in order for
the judge to approve it, probable cause had to be demonstrated, which
showed that the bug was crucial to the case.
Had the bug not been discovered by a security sweep, the whole case
would not have come to light. Hardly the gamble a "smear" campaign would
want to rely on.

Nonetheless, the conclusions were obvious. The people in Philly would
rather believe that this act was not about law enforcement as much as it
was an attempt to smear a mayor. I would say that this demonstrates a
misplaced sense of priority.




Speaks volumes about the decline in morality that our society has been
going through.

Because "government agencies" are not
accepted without question? Decline away, if so.

When you question every action of law enforcement as dubious, that says
something.

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

That's right, Bush should be evicted from the White House for lying to us
like that.


And when you can provide factual evidence which proves this to be the
case, I'll lead the charge. Otherwise, go back to reading the propaganda
like a good mindless toady.

Dave

"The aircraft carrier is too far offshore. The President *must* fly out to the
carrier in a Navy jet, as the Marine 1 helicopter doesn't have sufficient
range."

(The carrier was circling, just off San Diego, with the entire crew delayed a
day or so returning home after a long deployment so Bush could strut around in
a bomber jacket). :-(

Proven lie.

Proven by who or what? Nowhere have I seen anything other than it was
perhaps a waste of time, and that the president could have waited
another day. I'm sure that this was orchestrated by Bush's PR committee.
So who lied?


We could get into all the claims about Iraq, but there's a tiny amount of
possibility he was just stupidly mistaken.


And that possibility is very real, so accusing him of deliberately lying
or misleading without removing that possibility is intellectually
irresponsible.


I'd insist on the benefit of the
doubt for anybody else, so I won't get into the WMD, Saddam & 9-11, and other
claims the administration has since backed down from or events have proven
false. Tossed up, the right wing says "There's a shred of possiblity he wasn't
lying, so you can't *prove* he was." The right wing is technically correct on
this issue.

We base our decisions on our intelligence agencies and past performance
and the psych profile of Saddam. It was very likely that he was hiding/
building WMD. Otherwise why act so belligerent, and evasive, when the
weapon's inspectors were there. If he had nothing to hide, why not allow
full unfettered access?


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Proof the American people have diminishing faith in government.

True, and thanks to liberal indoctrination, the people have become
paranoid.

And no accounting of this paranoia should be placed at the doorstep of our
chief in conspiracy, the President.

It's become quite evident to the American population that lying to get what
you want is okay. The most important thing is getting what you want.

Bush got his war, we get dead kids and a big tax bill.

Hooray for government!!!