Conference back40::soapbox

    	Great. The thing that annoys me most about it, is the waste of
    federal time and money on something that happened seventeen years ago
    so that nothing can actually be done since it is passed the statue of
    limitations if a crime DID occur. (Whew, should have stuck a period in
    there somewhere)
    
    
    
    								S.R.
    

Note 26.1 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
    
    >	Great. The thing that annoys me most about it, is the waste of
    >federal time and money on something that happened seventeen years ago
    >so that nothing can actually be done since it is passed the statue of
    >limitations if a crime DID occur. (Whew, should have stuck a period in
    >there somewhere)
    
    wrong. if true, some accusations are still prosecutable. besides, you
    don't care if your president is a crook?
    
    
    								S.R.
    

    	I do care, that's why it bothered me that Reagan's administration
    had more federal officials indited than all the other administrations
    combined, including Nixon's. I suppose if there where criminal
    activites that where proven I would take offense. I'm a Dem. and I'm
    still glad Rostencowski (spelling?) is out. I believe he is a crook. I
    think if there was criminal wrongs in the whitewater case, one of the
    three prosocuters would have found it by now. Also I didn't realize
    that any of the offense's (if true) would be prosecuteable. I didn't
    think finacial crimes had that long a statue. Then again I'm not a
    lawyer, so that's no surprise.
    
    
    							S.R.
    

    
    the clinton's former WW business partner, susan mcdougal, has been
    ordered to stand trial on charges of embezzling more than $150,000
    from a couple who employed her as a bookkeeper.  she is accused of
    making unauthorized credit card purchases and forging checks.  
    
    (she was the one in the hot pants riding the horse in the WW teevee
    commercials.)
    
    ho ho! 
    
    bill

    	I guess that blows my theory about the statue of limitations.
    
    
    	I do so hate being wrong!   :'(

    The only way the Republicans can justify all the money they blew trying
    to pin something on Bill is to finally arrest the spokes model for
    whitewater on a totally unrealted issue.  Bill is clean, you know it I
    know it, everyone knows it.  Get a life 
    
    

    
    So were Ray Donvan, Cap Weinburger, Ed Meese, the guys
    slimed in like manner by the arrogant and thankfully
    gone House Dem leadership.
    

	We don't know it.  That is what the hearing is for.  That is why we have
a special prosecutor.

ME

    > Bill is clean, you know it I know it, everyone knows it.
    
    Ask Bill about his Swiss bank account under the name Chelsea
    Jefferson.  There's $10M in it.

	Chelsea has to have a college edumacation ya know.... 

    According to Mr. Jong, BillC was the lowest paid luvgov in the USA.
    Where'd the money come from?  Could it be from Hillarious's commodity
    profits?  What's he hiding?

    
    Sheeeeeeeeeesh Mad_Mike!!!!
    
    You paranoid or what????
    
    You must be bucking for the M_MERCIER Consiracy Freak of The Year
    Award!!!
    
    
    
    
                           :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
    

    Mike M, please cite a source for that outlandish claim.

    The dims are about to be reminded about people in glass houses......
    

    not everything will come out, of course. what WILL come out are blatant
    improprietaries in the handlings of money. the "we lost money" garbage
    will fall by the wayside. the dims will seek a compromise under the
    table and the issue will be dismissed with the first family getting a
    slap on the hands "for being less than informed than they should have
    about the dealings". their personal lives will be little affected. he
    IS a standing president after all. but it will be another "ding" in his
    political armour and his cries of "witch hunt" will not save his
    political neck. the repubs will push it only hard enough to get one
    more "ding" which slick will have to agree to to avoid potentially
    disasterous disclosures. its the way the system works and slick
    arrogant immaturity in such matters has cooked his goose. i hope, for
    the country's sake, its not to late.

    re: Note 26.13 by TNPUBS::JONG 
    
    Outlandish or not, I believe where there's smoke there's fire.
    I would tend to discount the Vince Stuff below.  I didn't edit the
    note.  I'm mainly focusing on the 1st paragraph.  Feel free to
    tear into the Vince stuff, the fact remains that Mena Arkansas
    is a real and potentially damaging issue for yer pal.
    
    
Source:
Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts reports:  
 
A usually reliable British newsletter group claims President 
Clinton has $10 million parked in a Swiss bank account under the 
code words, "Chelsea Jefferson". ("Chelsea" is Clinton's 
daughter, and "Jefferson" is Clinton's middle name.) The 
newsgroup claims they have turned over corroborating documents to 
independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr and Newt Gingrich on Capitol 
Hill. The Clinton money, the news writers say, was skimmed off of 
cocaine smuggling through the CIA-linked Mena airport in 
Arkansas. Used, they say, was Clinton's money laundry, the 
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, linked to Clinton's bond 
broker bandits.
 
British news sources predict Clinton may well be on the way to 
prison, or impeachment, before the end of his term in the White 
House. The sources contend that the cocaine-money "washing" was 
arranged by Hillary and her law partner, Vincent Foster, jr.
 
As White House aide, Foster was set to plead with Clinton to 
somehow explain the $10 million or be impeached! But before he 
could do so, Foster was murdered, near the White House, and the 
Secret Service, as a favor to Clinton, parked his dead body in a 
park in Virginia!
 
On the other hand, sources in the German intelligence service 
contend a German-based group of non-German residents, highly- 
sophisticated killers, arranged to have Foster's death made to 
look like suicide.

    ...someone just tapped me on the shoulder and when I looked

    <<< Note 26.16 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

Mike, you gotta be more discriminating in your choice of resources.
Jeezuz....

    madmike is shooting to be the nest mmercier.  he's gonna make it if he
    keeps comin up with stories like that one.

    re: Note 26.18 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
    > Mike, you gotta be more discriminating in your choice of resources.
    
    What do you want me to use?  The Boston Globe?  Night Line?
    
    Why is it that anything that doesn't appear in the "mainstream" media
    is discounted as crap.  Sooner or later this "crap" makes its way
    to the mainstream media.  Sorta.  Spun up for your enjoyment.
    
    You gotta admit, there is something to Whitewater.  I don't know what
    it is, and neither does anyone else.  Eventually stuff will come out,
    maybe.  "Both sides" will actively discredit those who don't think
    appropriately.

 re:  <<< Note 26.6 ROMEOS::STONE_JE >>>        

   >             -< If you don't have facts, make something up >
   >
   > The only way the Republicans can justify all the money they blew trying
   > to pin something on Bill is to finally arrest the spokes model for
   > whitewater on a totally unrealted issue.  Bill is clean, you know it I
   > know it, everyone knows it.  Get a life 
    
   you really _should_ work on your reading comprehension.  brushing up
   current events would be a plus, as well.

   bill 

    White water is not a current event.  Are you asking me if I subscribe to
    the London papers in hopes of finding some 2 bit story I can hang my
    hat on, no I don't.  I do wish you guys would get real.  If you have
    some facts, out with them.  If it's just wishful thinking, then give it
    up, you just make yourselves looks foolish.  
    
    Now read my lips, FACTS,  not rumours, not Rush, FACTS,
    
    Put up or shut up.
    

    well romeo, i suggest you take your plea to the american people. they
    do indeed seem to want to get to the bottom of this. and much to the
    distaste of the warlock and witch in the WH, i believe the people WILL
    get to the bottom of this. you dims do indeed have plenty of reason to
    be squirming and cry foul (as tho that will help anyting). you boy is
    dirty and so is his witch.
    
    this dirty little affair could put even more stress on the already
    fragile 1st marriage. 
    
    god help the republic.

re: <<< Note 26.22 ROMEOS::STONE_JE >>> 

   > White water is not a current event.

   oh, but do the clinton's wish this were true!  unfortunately for them,
   it isn't.  after the special prosecuter is finished with his investigation,
   maybe you can catch the senate hearings on the tube and find out what all
   of the hoopla is about.  
                
   > Now read my lips, FACTS,  not rumours, not Rush, FACTS,
    
   > Put up or shut up.
    
   o.k., here's a fact for you:  the republicans didn't arrest the 
   whitewater spokesmodel, as you asserted in 22.6.

bill   

              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 2  Num. 94
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
WHITEWATER BLACKOUT
Is The Media Missing The Story?
 
[From a *700 Club* Fact Sheet, based on a *700 Club* Newswatch 
feature broadcast on September 28, 1994.]
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
The Washington press corps is famous for investigating White 
House "scandals" with the ferocity of a pit-bull. But regarding 
the most recent "scandal" called "Whitewater," many are 
wondering: has the pit-bull lost its bite?
 
While some have complained of a media feeding frenzy over 
Whitewater, Dr. Robert Lichter's Center for Media and Public 
Affairs reported earlier this year that media coverage of 
Whitewater has been lacking.
 
Prior to the Senate hearings on the subject, Whitewater had 
received just one-third the coverage Watergate received at a 
similar point in that episode.
 
Why have reporters been seemingly slow to thoroughly cover a 
story of political intrigue that first came to the surface at the 
height of the 1992 presidential campaign?
 
"It snuck under the national press' radar screen," says Stephen 
Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Hess blames the 
complicated nature of Whitewater for the media's slow and 
inadequate coverage.
 
L. Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center does 
not accept Hess' explanation. "[Whitewater] is very complicated, 
but guess what: so was Watergate and so was Iran-Contra... and so 
were a bunch of other things."
 
>From November 1, 1993, to August 15, 1994, Lichter's Center for 
Media & Public Affairs monitored media coverage of the major 
players in scandals surrounding the Clintons, classifying 
coverage as either "positive" or "negative." The results show a 
clear media bias in favor of the Clintons and against Clinton 
opponents: Bill Clinton, split at 49 percent positive; Hillary 
Clinton, 61 percent positive; Lloyd Cutler, 87 percent positive. 
Roger Altman was the only administration figure to receive 
overwhelmingly bad press (70 percent negative).
 
Critics of Clinton received consistently negative coverage: 
Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA), 60 percent negative; Senator Bob 
Dole (R-KS), 62 percent negative; Paula Jones, 67 percent 
negative; Arkansas state troopers, 77 percent negative; Kenneth 
Starr, 52 percent negative.
 
Members of the foreign media have been more willing than their 
American counterparts to cover Whitewater. The London 
*Economist*, and *Sunday Telegraph* both have published accounts 
related to Whitewater that received little coverage in the 
American media.
 
The *Economist's* Christopher Wood recently wrote a critique in 
*The Wall Street Journal* of the American press' coverage of 
Whitewater. He said he was "a little puzzled by my colleagues in 
the American media" for what he called the "genteel distance" the 
press has kept between itself and the strange events in Arkansas. 
He concluded by calling the American media's failure in this 
story "extraordinary."
 
In a recent *Wall Street Journal-NBC News* survey, just one in 
five Americans said the media are very or mostly honest. The 
media's seeming reluctance to delve deeply into the waters of 
Whitewater has only enhanced charges of media bias, making 
increasing numbers of Americans suspicious of both their 
president and their press.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to [email protected] -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

 Brian Francis Redman    [email protected]    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."
--------------------------------------------------------------


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA26397; Tue, 22 Nov 94 05:06:15 -080
% Received: from argus.cso.uiuc.edu by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA13118; Tue, 22 Nov 94 05:04:25 -080
% Received: from firefly.prairienet.org by argus.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA12161 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for <[email protected]>); Tue, 22 Nov 1994 07:01:37 -060
% Received: from  (localhost) by firefly.prairienet.org (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29586; Tue, 22 Nov 94 07:01:33 CS
% Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 07:01:33 CST
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Reply-To: [email protected]
% Originator: conspire
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% From: Brian Redman <[email protected]>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
% Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 2 Num. 94
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

    My spin on this deal.  Whitewater involves, among other things, the 
    complex issue of money.  Another reason why I'm checking up on that 
    topic.  Maybe the reason why people don't GAS about this, or the 
    appearance that many press isn't jumping all over this is because:
    
    It's a complex or difficult issue to understand or report.
    There are A LOT of "players" who will be exposed if this deal unfolds.
    The only people who can expose this issue are "guilty" of the
    same behavior and will be exposed as hypocrytes or whale crap while
    doing so.
            

    Is WhiteWaterGate where they start the Olympic Kayaking event?
    
    Or the finish?
    
    I did the Nenana gorge once.  My kayak died shortly after I bailed out,
    which was just before I hit a huge rock broadside.

    
    i'd rather take my chances with the great whites off santa cruz.
    
    

    	From a 700 Club factsheet??
    
    	THERE'S  an unbiased source!!

    	Fine.  Provide us with something better.

re: Note 26.29 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
    
    Sanitized.  Just names and facts.
    
 
WHITEWATER BLACKOUT
Is The Media Missing The Story?
 
Dr. Robert Lichter's Center for Media and Public 
Affairs reported earlier this year that media coverage of 
Whitewater has been lacking.
 
Prior to the Senate hearings on the subject, Whitewater had 
received just one-third the coverage Watergate received at a 
similar point in that episode.
 
"It snuck under the national press' radar screen," says Stephen 
Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Hess blames the 
complicated nature of Whitewater for the media's slow and 
inadequate coverage.
 
L. Brent Bozell of the conservative Media Research Center does 
not accept Hess' explanation. "[Whitewater] is very complicated, 
but guess what: so was Watergate and so was Iran-Contra... and so 
were a bunch of other things."
 
>From November 1, 1993, to August 15, 1994, Lichter's Center for 
Media & Public Affairs monitored media coverage of the major 
players in scandals surrounding the Clintons, classifying 
coverage as either "positive" or "negative." The results show a 
clear media bias in favor of the Clintons and against Clinton 
opponents: Bill Clinton, split at 49 percent positive; Hillary 
Clinton, 61 percent positive; Lloyd Cutler, 87 percent positive. 
Roger Altman was the only administration figure to receive 
overwhelmingly bad press (70 percent negative).
 
Critics of Clinton received consistently negative coverage: 
Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA), 60 percent negative; Senator Bob 
Dole (R-KS), 62 percent negative; Paula Jones, 67 percent 
negative; Arkansas state troopers, 77 percent negative; Kenneth 
Starr, 52 percent negative.
 

The London 
*Economist*, and *Sunday Telegraph* both have published accounts 
related to Whitewater that received little coverage in the 
American media.
 
The *Economist's* Christopher Wood recently wrote a critique in 
*The Wall Street Journal* of the American press' coverage of 
Whitewater. He said he was "a little puzzled by my colleagues in 
the American media" for what he called the "genteel distance" the 
press has kept between itself and the strange events in Arkansas. 
He concluded by calling the American media's failure in this 
story "extraordinary."
 
In a recent *Wall Street Journal-NBC News* survey, just one in 
five Americans said the media are very or mostly honest. The 
media's seeming reluctance to delve deeply into the waters of 
Whitewater has only enhanced charges of media bias, making 
increasing numbers of Americans suspicious of both their 
president and their press.
 

    re .30
    
>    	Fine.  Provide us with something better.
    
    Any sources I quote are going to be suspect because the article itself
    is saying the mainstream media is biased. I was reffering to the fact
    that the 700 hundred club has an agenda, and there reporting leans to
    that agenda. If I say that that x and such magazine says this isn't so,
    You can say that's because they are biased. It's a catch twenty two. I
    don't feel that Clinton has received kid glove reporting from the
    media, the lack of whitewater coverage is due to the lack of findings.
    I'm sure if your boy Newt turns up something provable, he will be able
    to get all the coverage he want's. The media tend to be like sharks,if
    they smell blood, your finished.
    
    
    								S.R.

>>    	Fine.  Provide us with something better.
>    
>    Any sources I quote are going to be suspect because the article itself
>    is saying the mainstream media is biased. 
    
    	The 700-club doesn't stand alone in this claim.
    
    	Do *you* believe that the mainstream media are biased?  If not,
    	use them to refute the 700-club's piece.  If you do, then what's
    	the problem? The 700-club affirms your belief!
    
    	Or are you really saying that you're willing to deride others'
    	sources for info, but are unwilling to see your sources subjected
    	to the same thing?
    
    	Everybody has an agenda.  Why not put all the info we can from
    	all the sources we can into the pot here and see where there are
    	common threads join?  As it stands now, we have a single source,
    	and the only objection is derision of the source, not the facts
    	presented by the source.

    re .33
    
    	I won't try to say that mainstream publications don't have a slant,
    they all do to one degree or another. However, what I mean by
    mainstream is that they exist for the purpose of reporting news, what
    ever that news may be. The 700 club does not exist for the purpose of
    reporting news, it exists to further it's own belief's (and it has
    every right to do that) and to spread the "word". I would be similarly
    suspicius of a Pro-Clinton article in a democratic party newsletter or
    a pro-union article in a union newsletter. All the articles I have read
    on whitewater (in Time, U.S. News and World report, Newsweek and my
    local paper) have reported essentially the same thing, Some bad
    judgement and investments, but the only thing illegal was a small some
    of unpaid taxes. According to the 700 club report I can't trust those
    sources however. I note that it (the 700 club report) didn't have any
    evidence of Laws broken or anything, it was simply railing against the
    "Liberal media" and claiming it (whitewater) hadn't recieved as much
    attention as watergate. Isn't it possible (not IS, just possible) that 
    it didn't recieve as much coverage because the is little or nothing to
    cover. I will point out again that 3 prosocuters have failed to find
    anything, and one of them was practically hand picked by the Repub's.
    
    
    								S.R.

    
    The Whitewater special counsel will seek indictments 
    against the former Deputy Atty General Web Hubbell 
    and Governor Jim Guy Tucker of Arkansas.

look for jim and susan mcdougal to share top billing here, as well.
special counsel kenneth starr has made a formal appeal to a u.s. district
judge in little rock to delay scheduled sentencing of david hale on a
fraud charge unrelated to WW.  hale is trying to cut a deal for a reduced
sentence in exchange for testifying that jim mcdougal and slick hisself
talked him into illegally making a 300k federally backed loan to susan
mcdougal in 1985.

sounds like the slickster is on his way to becoming an "unindicted co-
conspirator." well, he did say that RMN used to give him a lot of advice. :*)

bill

    this REALLY is a little nest of weasels ain't it?

    
    
    "Alleged" nest of weasels, gene...

    ain't alledged in my book andy. the rest of the nation will find out in
    '95. count on it.

    
    Mine neither.... :) 

    Whatever happened to Hillsbury's and Magaziner's trial for the
    various shenanigans they pulled during the health care meetings?
    I believe it was a group of doctors that was suing Hillsbury & Co.
    for not playing by the rules regarding having closed-door meetings
    when a certain percentage of the committee was comprised of (?)
    non-government-employees or something like that?
    
    Last time I heard of this trial (last summer), it was supposed to
    begin in September.  So, what happened?
    
    Chris

    It never went to trial (yet ...).  It was headed off when the
    administration promised to deliver the records.  The suit was brought
    by the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons who contended that
    the 'task-force' was extremely biased in it's make-up and used many HMO
    representatives and none from any of the major medical societies.  

    To date (mid October) the first set of papers were transferred.  The
    archivist working for AAPS has found several inconsistencies, like the
    'task-force' was paying an extra salary to salaried Gov't employees,
    the total bill for the work of the task-force was not "several hundred
    thousand" as had been maintained by the administration but over $30
    million, and yes there were representatives from all the big HMO's and
    labor Health & pension fund managers.

    About mid-October it became apparent that the administration was again
    pulling a fast one in that they had testified that as of nnn date, the
    task force was dissolved and no work other than administrative wind-down
    was performed.  Testimony was offered that Hillary has ordered that no
    documents after that nnn date were to be transferred, even though 
    there were actions that were covered by the lawsuit that should have
    been turned over.  So it went back to court, and that's the last I
    heard of it.

    There still has been no ruling either in terms of referral to the
    Justice department for possible perjury by H. Clinton or I. Magaziner
    (highly improbable given the make-up of Justice) or the more likely
    Contempt of Court citation that is being bandied about.

    /jim

    was made up of exclusively
    HMO representatives and brought the suit to open the records

    Thanks for the update, /jim.  It sounds like it's gotten
    even nastier than it had sounded at the outset.  The newspapers
    haven't been covering this (surprise)...
    
    Thanks,
    Chris

    Haag, what've you got against weasels that you'd go calling them names?

    re -1
    
    you're right. weasels is too good. pond scum is more like it.

                From *The Sunday Times*, 27 Nov. 1994
 
                  BILL LEARNS TO WALK ON EGGSHELLS
 
 
John Major may be doing a Samson and threatening to bring the temple
down on Eurosceptic heads, but Atticus [this columnist] thinks that
the War Hero in Washington is in even bigger trouble than the PM. The
special prosecutor in the Whitewater probe is turning up the heat on
two of Bill Clinton's former partners, James and Susan McDougal, and
is warning former employees of Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan
bank, that they will face criminal charges if they do not co-operate
with the investigation. Methinks Major will survive [he has, so far,
unfortunately], as will the Draft Dodger, but in Clinton's case, he
will be far too bloodied to fight in 1996.
 
Susan McDougal has offered to tell everything she knows about the
Clintons in exchange for immunity, but the special prosecutor has
rejected the deal. Coming on the heels of the Republican election 
sweep, the upcoming Whitewater indictments will add to Clinton's
political woes by refocusing attention on shady dealings while he
was governor of Arkansas. Far worse, however, are the allegations
that Clinton must have known about drug shipments into Arkansas
while he was governor.
 
Briefly, they are as follows: during the 1980s the CIA was flying 
arms through Mena airport in Arkansas to the Nicaraguan contras,
but when the planes came back, they carried drugs into the state.
Arkansas was supposed to have become a mini-Colombia, with state
troopers witnessing the shipments. All inquiries until now have
been obstructed.
 
Now comes the interesting part. ABC, an American television network,
was probing the story of Clinton apparently "obstructing justice"
and trying to prevent a witness testifying to the special prosecutor
..until the White House intervened. Now, the executive producer
of the network's news show - a Clinton pal who advised the War Hero
on how to handle himself on television during the 1992 election -
has been persuaded to "look at the story again".
 
Hillary meanwhile is enraged at Bill's decision to cut a deal with
the incoming Republican Congress. "The President has to stand for
what he stood for," says Hillary, but I'm afraid that she and her
feminist friends just don't get it. The Draft Dodger does. If there
is one thing he has been utterly decisive about throughout his life,
it is on the imperative to save his hide.
 
Right now, the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are all that stand
between him and a lifetime of poverty or worse. It is they who will
decide how intensely they want to pursue their inquiries into
Whitewater and all the assorted allegations of the Clintons' misdeeds.
So Clinton is ready to deal.
 
However different the moral stature of the two men, the dilemma
Clinton faces is similar to the one Nixon faced in 1973. To get
Congress off his back Nixon was forced to capitulate on one issue
after another. It did him no good. The House judiciary Committee
voted to impeach. Hillary should know. She worked zealously for 
that committee. Down at the farm, they call this the chickens
coming home to roost.

    <<< Note 26.46 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
                       -< More news from foreign source >-

Now there is an example of true unbiased journalism, at last! Why can't Dan
Blather and his pointy-headed liberal media cronies use clear objective
terminology like this guy? But nooooo, they give respect to a man who
deserves no respect by referring to him as "the president" or "President
Clinton" or simply "Clinton," barely disguising their adoration and
worship. Think how much more credible they would be if they'd call a spade
a spade and freely substituted "The War Hero" or "Draft Dodger" for
Clinton's name. Then we'd know they have no ax to grind. Just the facts,
and all the facts. 
 

    Anent .46: *IF* true, this allegation troubles me deeply.  If
    then-Governor Clinton "must" have known drugs were being smuggled into
    this country as part of Iran-Contra, then those in Washington who were
    *running the operation* must also have known.  And you know who that
    was...  Who would benefit from making this known?  Certainly not the
    Republicans.  Maybe other Democratic presidential hopefuls?  The
    Democratic Party as a whole would have the opportunity to smash the
    Republicans with this scandal; it would cut right through the core of
    their support.
    
    But then, that's only assuming it's true.  There's a lot to be done
    before that is established.

    re .46
    
    I must say I agree with .47. We are supposed to take someone seriously
    who refers to our president as The Draft Dodger. Get Real. I assume he
    refers to Dan Qualye and Newt Gingrich the same way. And the Millions
    or other adult males in America that didn't serve in vietnam. Jeesh, to
    hear some people talk, you woul think 99% of red blooded males served
    or something. 
    
    
    								Steve R.

>    Anent .46: *IF* true, this allegation troubles me deeply.

    The flights in and out of Mena were well documented during
    the Iran/Contra hearings.

    I always figured that Clinton's presidency was paypack for his
    cooperation.
    bob

>                   <<< Note 26.49 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
>
>    re .46
>    
>    I must say I agree with .47. We are supposed to take someone seriously
>    who refers to our president as The Draft Dodger. Get Real. I assume he
>    refers to Dan Qualye and Newt Gingrich the same way. And the Millions
>    or other adult males in America that didn't serve in vietnam. Jeesh, to
>    hear some people talk, you woul think 99% of red blooded males served
>    or something. 
>    
>    
>    								Steve R.



Not serving is not the same as draft dodging!  Get this in your head!!!  I
protested the war along with many, many red-blooded American males looking
for the social aspects of freedom-loving, drugged and happy female war
protesters!  It was a gas!!

What bothers people of my generation is that Bill protested the war here
and abroad, got appointed to ROTC (a much sought-after appointment, mind
you), and then, when he got his final lottery number and it was high
enough, he commenced to getting himself kicked out of ROTC!  Now - all of
these things are OK up until he got himself kicked out of ROTC!  

Then, after all this is done, he up and quits protesting and starts on a path
that put him in a position to get OTHERS killed for political reasons!  He only
protested the war when he thought he was going to die there! Then, when he got
lucky, he slithered out from under the ROTC rock.  As long as it's others that
are dying, he doesn't care.  He's President now and has already gotten others
killed for his political career!  I don't care if he's smart enough to have
learned his lesson in Somalia the fact is that he had professionals that
told him what was required to maintain safety and he, being the superior
intellect, decided that political imagery was more important than lives!

THAT'S WHAT I, PERSONALLY, DON'T LIKE ABOUT THAT PIECE OF FLOTSAM!  HE'S
PRESIDENT BY ACCIDENT AND I WANT HIM OUT!!!!!!!!

Bruce

    re .49
    
    Steve -- if you think that all Clinton did was "not serve", you're
    misinformed.  His own paper trail unambiguously reveals that he
    repeatedly lied to Arkansas Selective Service officials about his
    intentions to fulfill his obligations and hence, he "dodged the draft".
                                                       
    

    <<< Note 26.52 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>

...and others.

The song of the righteous is awfully loud in here. Get over it. Like a 
zillion other guys in that time, he pulled every string he had to get out 
of that war. Whether it was principle, fear, or both is beside the point. 
It was over 30 years ago. A lot of 'boxers weren't even born yet. If you 
haven't changed in over three decades, you've got a problem. Do you want 
your college escapades to be the defining portrait upon which you base your 
career?

As to the guy who said "we all protested the war. it was a hoot" Some of us 
took our protests a bit more seriously than that. We thought the war was 
immoral, driven by economic, not humane concerns. Whether our assessment 
was misguided or not is, again, beside the point. We didn't like what the 
govt was doing and we let our voice be heard. Don't project your vacuous 
reasons for "protesting" on Clinton. Prove it. And don't compare Somalia to 
Vietnam. Somalia was clearly a humanitarian effort; there were no 
"strategic interests," which made it politically risky and possibly ill 
advised, but you can't hang the "say one thing and do another" label on BC 
for that one.

Note 26.53 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    

>The song of the righteous is awfully loud in here. Get over it. Like a 
>zillion other guys in that time, he pulled every string he had to get out 
>of that war. Whether it was principle, fear, or both is beside the point. 
    
    i have never damned him for getting out of the war. i have never damned
    him for protesting the war here at home. for lying about it for
    political gain, and protesting on foreign soil i hope his ass rots in
    hell.

    
    Well, it's a bit hard to take, in Gore/Gingrich/Clinton/Quayle, etc
    for those of us who went.
    
    I have MUCH more respect for Kerry, for example.
    
    This was a test, though we didn't know it at the time.  The question
    was to what extent we felt indebted to our country.  The answer we
    came up with (and I was opposed to the war, too) still represents a
    divide that runs bitterly through our generation, just below the
    surface.
    
      bb

    Surely there is a huge difference between having (and acting on) a
    principled opposition to the war, on the one hand, and on the other,
    lying and conniving and cheating the system to ensure that "some other
    poor schmuck" goes in your place.
    
    The marathoner Bill Rodgers emptied bedpans at Boston City Hospital for
    two years (CO status); a news program I watched some years ago profiled
    a rabbi's son who went to Federal prison for his opposition to 
    Vietnam, the draft, the whole ball of wax.
    
    It is possible to make some meaningful distinctions here, is it not?
    

    
    
    
    First Whitewater conviction has happened.Robert W. Palmer who operated
    Palmer Properties Inc., entered a guilty plea before US district Judge
    Thomas Eisele, admitting in a plea agreement with Mr. Starr to
    falsifying and backdating thousands of dollars in appraisals.

            <<< Note 26.54 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    him for protesting the war here at home. for lying about it for
>    political gain, and protesting on foreign soil i hope his ass rots in
>    hell.

For protesting in England? I don't know about you, but I didn't take 
protesting the war overseas as treasonous while I was protesting at home. 
And I doubt many others who opposed the war would have been outraged to 
learn that an american was protesting in England. If the war is WRONG, as 
it appeared to us at the time, then it's arguably treasonous NOT to protest 
- wherever you are.

As to his attempts to cover it up...I don't know the details, but it's not 
too surprising. Suppose you applied for a job, and one of the questions on 
the application was "Have you ever smoked pot?" And suppose you knew that a 
YES would guarantee you would not get hired and you also knew that you 
hadn't smoked any for 25 years and so it was an irrelavent question anyway, 
would you answer yes? Keep in mind, this is a job you feel destined to do, 
and you want more than anything els in your life. Well, I get the feeling 
from your 'box presence that you'd answer "yes" anyway. And good for you 
for your remarkable integrity, but I know a lot of people I'd trust my life 
with completely who would answer "no."

    
    
    Perhaps that's cuz you weren't in country, eh Mr. Davis?

>                       <<< Note 26.58 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

         .........  Stuff deleted so I can take a comment out of
                    context - just in case I ever become a Liberal I'll
                    be in practice ..........

>                Suppose you applied for a job, and one of the questions on 
>the application was "Have you ever smoked pot?" 


When was the last time Clinton applied for a job?

Bruce

Note 26.58 by USMVS::DAVIS

>As to his attempts to cover it up...I don't know the details, but it's not 
>too surprising. Suppose you applied for a job, and one of the questions on 
>the application was "Have you ever smoked pot?" And suppose you knew that a 
>YES would guarantee you would not get hired and you also knew that you 
>hadn't smoked any for 25 years and so it was an irrelavent question anyway, 
    
    he's not in just ANY old job. he sits in the most powerful office in
    the world. and he and his witch campaigned on the economic and moral
    high ground. lies. all lies. and he never had to fill out a job
    application. your analogy is ridiculous.

                      <<< Note 26.55 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                      -< This runs very deep for some... >-

The division is deep, it's true. And tragic. What is often lost is that 
good people were on both sides of the issue. So were no-so-good. 

What remains, however, is that those who went suffered the reality of war 
and to make matters worse, did it without a victory to show for it. And
those that stayed behind didn't suffer more than an occassional mustard
gassing, and may have been largely responsible for that lack of success. I
don't know how you resolve that, except to hope that time and reason heals.

Tom 

            <<< Note 26.61 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

It's not rediculous at all. My guess is that he knew his record of avoiding 
the draft over 30 years ago would deliver a fatal blow to his bid for the
presidency, even though he also knew it had no bearing on his ability to
perform the job today, so he tried to conceal it. If he were trying to 
conceal something that had a material impact on his ability to perform his 
duties, that would represent untrustworthiness worth getting riled up 
about. But this whole draft thing is just a convenient dog to whip and his 
political opponents are only too eager to pick up the stick. You're just 
piling on.

    
    
    Mustard Gas??
    

Note 26.63 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
It's not rediculous at all. My guess is that he knew his record of avoiding 
         rIdiculous
    
    
>the draft over 30 years ago would deliver a fatal blow to his bid for the
>presidency, even though he also knew it had no bearing on his ability to
>perform the job today, so he tried to conceal it. If he were trying to 
>conceal something that had a material impact on his ability to perform his 
>duties, that would represent untrustworthiness worth getting riled up 
>about. But this whole draft thing is just a convenient dog to whip and his 
>political opponents are only too eager to pick up the stick. You're just 
>piling on.
    
    piling on? understand something here. most vets that served in combat
    zones will tell you that that time was the most emotional, intense time
    of their lives. no one wants special treatment because of that. nor do
    they want it trivialized. all this president needed/needs to do is
    admit what he did and move on. its an insult that he feels his lies for
    political purposes don't warrant a "coming clean" statement.
    
    i agree that what happened 30 years ago should be left be to memories,
    if possible. this presidents' aviodance of military service is but one
    in a long line of character "flaws" that he engaged in down the years.
    the cumulative effect has led him to act the way he does today. maybe
    he will yet get religion. i doubt it. he's gone in '96 for sure. only
    thing left to determine is how much damage he'll do in the interim.

   <<< Note 26.59 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Montanabound, oneof these days" >>>

    
    
>    Perhaps that's cuz you weren't in country, eh Mr. Davis?

I was. I got out because of a physical deferment (asthma). Not sure what I 
would've done if I were in fact drafted. Probably go to 'Nam. I wish I 
could say it would be because I had the courage to face my responsibilities to 
my country. But, i'm afraid I would fit in that least noble of groups: 
those that went because they were more afraid of the humilation to myself 
and my family than the potential of death or dismemberment.

    
    
    Fair enough, you did your part.  
    
    
    Mike

     Webster Hubbel is now an admitted and convicted felon. Apparently the
    Clinton's good friend is exactly the sort of greed broker that the
    Clinton's railed about during the campaign, as he has admitted to
    bilking his lawfirm and clients to the tune of $400k. nice to see that
    scandals are not the exclusive province of republicans (though at
    times, er, like election times, you might get that impression.)

    So now, with his pledge of cooperation in hand as part of the plea
    bargain, Special Prosecutor Starr will be using the Hubbell Telescope
    to zoom in on further malfeasance...
    

 
Court muzzles paper, keeps Whitewater quiet
===========================================
 
USA Today - 12/06/94
Point of view by Michael Gartner
 
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- If you have any outrage left -- if you 
haven't used it all up on Jesse Helms or Hillary Clinton or Newt 
Gingrich or whomever you're mad at this week -- direct it at 
David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter P. Fay.
 
They are doing far more damage to you and to your country than 
are the front-page, household names you're used to grousing 
about.
 
Sentelle is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia circuit, and Butzner and Fay are senior appelate 
judges. They have issued a ruling in a case involving *The Wall 
Street Journal*, and they have told the *Journal* -- and the rest 
of the press -- that it can't even print what the ruling is.
 
Let me go over that one more time for you:
 
A court has ruled in an important case and told the press it 
can't tell you and me what it ruled.
 
It's outrageous.
 
It's bizarre.
 
It's unconstitutional.
 
But it has happened. In America.
 
Here are the facts:
 
In January, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske to 
investigate the Whitewater matter. He looked into the death of 
Vincent Foster, the removal of documents from his office, and 
that whole mess -- alleged mess, at least -- involving the 
Clintons, Whitewater Development Corp. and Madison Guaranty 
Savings and Loan.
 
In August, after a change in the law about how investigations 
were to be handled, a special arm of the Circuit Court of Appeals 
took jurisdiction from the attorney general and replaced Fiske 
with Kenneth W. Starr. Fiske then turned in -- apparently -- his 
final report, filing it with the Circuit Court.
 
In October, *The Wall Street Journal* heard that Fiske had indeed 
filed his report and that it had been sealed by the court. The 
*Journal* then went to court and asked for a copy of the report 
-- if such a report exists.
 
Nothing happened.
 
Fiske and Starr filed responses with the court but didn't tell 
the *Journal*.
 
A *Journal* lawyer then called the office of each man and asked 
for a copy of his response.
 
Each "refused to comment on that topic, and would not even 
disclose whether they had filed a response," a court document 
states.
 
In November, the court ruled on the *Journal's* request for a 
copy of the Fiske report. Presumably, the court said the 
*Journal* couldn't have it. But -- and here the outrage 
quadruples -- the court sealed its own response.
 
And it told the *Journal* it could not print a story saying what 
that response was.
 
This is known, in the language of the law, as a "prior 
restraint."
 
"Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious 
and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," 
the Supreme Court noted in 1976. The "damage can be particularly 
great when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of 
news and commentary on current events," it added.
 
Not even the Pentagon Papers -- that explosive history of the war 
in Vietnam with reams of classified information -- were deemed 
too sensitive for our eyes. The Nixon administration tried to 
stop us from reading them -- it sought a prior restraint -- but 
the Supreme Court said no.
 
In appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn this prior 
restraint, lawyers for the *Wall Street Journal* wrote: "It is 
inconceivable that there can be any legitimate, much less 
extraordinary, reason for shielding the public from knowledge 
that" -- and there the sentence ends. For the appeal is a public 
document, and therefore it cannot say what's under seal.
 
It implies that the *Journal* lawyers know what's in the sealed 
document, but if they do they aren't talking.
 
The Appeals Court "did not even attempt to explain or justify the 
prohibition against publication before entering it," the brief 
states.
 
I called the Appeals Court and asked the clerk why the decision 
had been sealed. "I can't answer it. I can't even discuss it," he 
said. "There is no public record of it, so I can't speak about 
it." Perhaps I could speak to one of the judges, I said. "The 
court speaks through me," he replied.
 
*The Wall Street Journal* appealed to Chief Justice William H. 
Rehnquist, and Monday he apparently sidestepped the issue.
 
So this is the situation:
 
Robert Fiske, the Whitewater investigator, presumably has written 
and filed a final report. *The Wall Street Journal* has asked to 
see a copy. The court apparently has said "no." And the court has 
told *The Wall Street Journal* that it can't even tell that to 
anyone.
 
Why?
 

    More judges run amuck in America.  At least once a week we hear
    of yet another outrageous "it can't happen here" kind of ruling
    by yet-another high-and-mighty, unaccountable, untouchable judge.
    
    We can vote for all the Republicans we want, but this country won't
    get fixed until we address this unlimited power that judges have.
    In many ways they affect our everyday life far more than our
    elected officials.  So do petty bureaucrats who aren't elected
    and aren't accountable, either.
    
    Chris

    amok.
    
    yvw.

    Well, you're usually right on matters literary, but my dictionary
    says "amuck" is the primary, and that "amok" is a variant.
    
    Fans of the Star Trek episode "Amok Time" may take note... :-)
    
    Chris

    .73
    
    both w9ncd and the oad give a definition for amok; neither lists amuck
    in this entry.  under amuck, w9ncd says variant of amok, oad says
    amuck=amok.

    	Replies to various notes. 
    
    	Haag, Clinton is out for sure? I saw some interesting numbers in USA
    today. At the two year mark. Bush was way higher in hsi approval rating
    then Clinton is now, (42% BTW) and he lost. Reagan was LOWER than
    Clinton is now and he one. Both Carter and Ford where higher. I
    wouldn't go making absolute predictions on polictical fortunes two
    years down the road, in American Politics that's a long time.
    
    	On the Hubble deal, I can't believe they spent all this time and
    money and all they ahve come up with is a crooked lawyer. I thought the
    terms were synonamous anyway. Seriously, Its said to see yet another of
    our justice deptment officials is a crook, I hoped we had left that
    behind with Regean/Bush. At least it was a crime that was totally
    unrelated to the White water investigation.
    
    	Re .74
    	
    	I read this to, Couldn't understand the resoning they used. It
    bothers me a lot. I hope it's challenged up to the supremem court.
    
    								S.R.

    re -1
    
    steve,
    
    ratings at this point of slick admin are almost meaningless. i've said
    nothing about them. answer one question. what parts of his domestic
    policy clinton is currently pursuing is supported my a majority
    (50.0000000000000001%) of americans?

    	Re -1
    
    	Gene, 
    
    	As far a I know, the crime bill had a 70% + approval rating.
    
     	Also health care refrom (not nessacarily the Presidents bill but
    refrom of some kind) had over 50% approval.
    
                                               S.R.

    
    on the radio today, rush said susan mcdougal is willing to tell all
    to starr for immunity, but he says no deal.  if true, this means
    the clintons, being equal partners with the mcdougals in ww, could be 
    in deep mcdou-doo.  
    
    bill

         <<< Note 26.78 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>

    
>    on the radio today, rush said susan mcdougal is willing to tell all
>    to starr for immunity, but he says no deal.  if true, this means
>    the clintons, being equal partners with the mcdougals in ww, could be 
>    in deep mcdou-doo.  

Smarten up. Do you think he'd turn down that offer, if he knew she had 
anything useful to say? Remember, this guy's been hand-picked by 
conservatives out to hang BC.

Man, the guys involved with that S&L have sh*t luck. Imagine all the 
other guys who made money big time in the S&L rip-offs of the 80s and are 
enjoying their slimey riches in anonymity. These guys made the HUGE mistake 
of doing it in arkansas. Now they're the colateral damage in the witch hunt 
to hang BC.

Note 26.77 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE 
    
    
    	>>As far a I know, the crime bill had a 70% + approval rating.
    
    it did not.
    
    > 	Also health care refrom (not nessacarily the Presidents bill but
    >refrom of some kind) had over 50% approval.
    
    i am not as concerned about the past as i am the future. that's why i
    asked the question about what CURRENT policies is the president
    pursuing the is supported by the MAJORITY of the peoples?
    
    yup. susan and jim are gonna spill the beans. doesn't matter a whole
    lot who fries when this is all done, the slickster and the witch are
    gonna lose points. big time. their already sagging credibility with the
    american people will plumment even more. another chink in the armor.
    someone send the clintons some jelly for Xmas. they are toast.
                                               S.R.

    
    re hand picked to hang the clintons:
    
    selecting kenneth starr wasn't newt's idea and anyway he's
    a lukewarm repub at best. 
    
    there were better choices for grand inquisitor, if that was
    what the repubs wanted to lay on.

re: .79

>of doing it in arkansas. Now they're the colateral damage in the witch hunt 
>to hang BC.

You mean Hillary is trying to hang BC???

    
    RE: .79
    
    Nixon had that same kinda luck too.. didn't he? After all.... many were
    doing it.... he just got caught....
    

    I'm going to give the liberals a little advice. They won't heed it, I
    know, which makes it all the nicer.
    
    Drug dealing, money laundering, cocaine abuse by a current VP,
    implication in several deaths, securities violations... these are
    not the things of a minor scandel. Bill Clinton is going down,
    and down hard. His wife, however, will go first. Hillary is
    going to jail. Mark my words, write it down, so that you can
    throw it in my face two years from now... OK? (I have no doubt
    you will quickly forget my words when the things I predict come
    to pass...)
    
    Anyway, my advice to you is this. If you truly cling to your
    ideals, run, as fast as you can, away from Bill Clinton and
    his hag. If you do not, your political goals will be in
    the crapper for no less than 20 years.
    
    Of course, I know (and hope) you will ignore this advice, because
    there is nothing I would like more for you ideals to suffer
    the big flush. Sorry, but well, there it is. Have a good laugh
    at this "yahoo" while you can...
    
    Anyway, within 1 year, the White House will be indistinguishable
    from Hitler's Berlin bunker in 1945.
    
    -b

    By the way, In my previous note, I did *not* mean a current
    VP... I meant a current President! According to several
    reports I have read, BC was a *major* cokehead.
    
    -b

    I just happened to catch another segment of "Clinton Chronicles"
    on teevee again.  Falwell (?) was pitching it for 39.00 + 5/s&h
    (but I've seen it elsewhere for $19 ho ho).
    
    The chant is getting louder.  If this stuff comes out into the light
    it's going to go down just like MARKEY says.  It will take many
    other people down too.  Ollie North for one.  I believe this stuff
    to be true, because things add up.  If anyone digs and turns up the
    volume (unlikely with abc/nbc/cbs/cnn/c-span) this'll be a bomb.
    A bunch of people who've tried to look into this wind up dead.
    
    But it's all a **big_conspiracy***  oooooohhhhhh.... don't worry about
    it... trust us.... ohhhhhhhhhhhh....  Bugga Bugga.

>    >>As far a I know, the crime bill had a 70% + approval rating.
    
>      it did not.
    
    .80
    
    Gene, you're wrong.  He's a liberal.  As far as HE knows the 'toon is
    god and Hillary is the virgin Mary.

    re -1 prolly so.

  <<< Note 26.83 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
                            -< So it's okay then? >-

    
>    Nixon had that same kinda luck too.. didn't he? After all.... many were
>    doing it.... he just got caught....

Nixon wasn't like any other president. His bag of tricks may have included 
some well-worn toys, but he was a whole other animal. Like the gun lobby 
says, it's not the gun, but the guy holding the gun that's dangerous.

No, it's not ok. All the S&L guys should get in big trouble. But only a 
very few will - these guys among them.    

    <<< Note 26.86 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
             -< Conflict of Interest/ethics is just the surface. >-

If BC and all the others are guilty of half the crap you accuse them of, 
they deserve whatever hell they get.

But think about it, Mike. Does it really add up? If you wanted to be 
president from the time you were in high school, if you life's ambition 
were to be a great public figure, would you be taking BIG chances with 
breaking the law? No, I don't think it adds up at all. 

Ollie's a different story. He was and is a zealot. Until Iran-Contra made 
him a household name, I don't think he had any political ambitions. So 
anything that could further THE CAUSE, is fair game. He already showed that 
by lying to congress under oath. I'd still be very surprised to find he was 
knowingly smuggling coke, but at least it's not outside the realm of 
possibility.

Tom

Note 26.90 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>But think about it, Mike. Does it really add up? If you wanted to be 
>president from the time you were in high school, if you life's ambition 
>were to be a great public figure, would you be taking BIG chances with 
>breaking the law? No, I don't think it adds up at all. 

    yes it does. at the time, they perceived they were doing no wrong since
    LOTS of people in their profession and status were doing much the same
    thing. in other words, their arrogance led them to believe they were
    somehow immune. somehow above the law. is that what your defending?

    Oh boy. The dems miss the point again. Bill just follows his wee
    wee and snorts a little blow... It's the missus, who knew she could
    use the pathetic dope she married to get anything she wanted, is
    where the real fun is... she's drunk with power and her husband's
    aspirations are but a vehicle... it's really BC who's along for
    the ride.
    
    -b

    > But think about it, Mike. Does it really add up?
    
    A lot of stuff does.  It's like a dead horse in the desert.  You can
    smell something, but you can't see it yet.  There's a lot of stuff,
    evidence, and people (who haven't died- yet) who have very damaging
    information.  Everyone who's hinted of this has activly been trashed
    by the media.  Paula Jones, the Troopers, former state employees...
    
    
    BC has a major credibility problem.  Right now most of the obvious
    stuff shows him to be hypocritical,  unethical.  I feel BC may
    avoid scrutiny because he probably had enough people to take the
    fall for him.
    
    WebH is a good example.  He's cashing out in a hurry because if they
    really put the spotlight on him he's a gonner.
    VinceF is another concerning issue.  There are many many problems
    with this issue, things that point to obstruction by _someone_.
    
    > If you wanted to be president from the time you were in high school,
    > if you life's ambition
    
    IMO: many politicians are downright crooks.  But how can "we" prove
    it?  It's next to impossible to get someone to investigate themselves
    and they're making the rules and in places of power.  This has gone
    on for a very long time.  The power shift in DC should be interesting
    because a LOT of skeletons are gonna be found in closets left and 
    right.  
    
    Heads will role. 

    Oh ya, the trashing/spin job by the media cuts both ways...
    
    Trash Paula Jones, trash everyone who can damage yer man.
    
    **but**  on 11/9/1994
    
    Suddenly we get to read about Newt Gingrich serving divorce papers to
    his wife while she's in the hospital getting surgery and he's a big
    bastard because he avoided child support payments blah blah blah....
    
    
    You think this is an accident?  The "mainstream" media is working
    overtime keeping this circus show going.  Face it, they (at least
    indirectly) got him elected.  Crap all over Bush and supress these
    wonderful character flaws/legal issues of BC which magically came out 
    AFTER he got in office.
                           
    How convenient.

    
    RE: .75   >...Its said to see yet another of our justice department 
               officials is a crook, I hoped we had left that behind with
               Regean/Bush...
    
    Which Reagan/Bush justice department officials were crooks?
    
    Paul
    
    

    >Which Reagan/Bush justice department officials were crooks?
        
    you'd probably make a shorter list of those who weren't.  There were
    more indictments of top officials in those admins than any five
    previous.
    
    DougO

    	Reply to .95 and .96
    
    	I have to correct .96, there were more officials indited in the
    Reagan administration  then ALL others combined, including Nixon.
    	
    	If some one wants a listing, dig up a paper from the mid-80's

   Note 26.79 USMVS::DAVIS                      
    
    >    on the radio today, rush said susan mcdougal is willing to tell all
    >    to starr for immunity, but he says no deal.  if true, this means
    >    the clintons, being equal partners with the mcdougals in ww, could be 
    >    in deep mcdou-doo.  

 >>Smarten up. Do you think he'd turn down that offer, if he knew she had 
 >>anything useful to say? Remember, this guy's been hand-picked by 
 >>conservatives out to hang BC.

   smarten up?  its clear that starr isn't going to give susan mcdougal
   immunity if she doesn't have anything of value or if the information
   she does have can be acquired from another source.  what isn't clear
   is why she feels jumping into the independent counsel's back-pocket
   in exchange for immunity is desirable.  an innocent person doesn't need
   immunity, although a case could be made that one can never be too
   careful.  nope, its mostly the guilty ones who try to cut a deal.  

>>Man, the guys involved with that S&L have sh*t luck. Imagine all the 
>>other guys who made money big time in the S&L rip-offs of the 80s and are 
>>enjoying their slimey riches in anonymity. These guys made the HUGE mistake 
>>of doing it in arkansas. Now they're the colateral damage in the witch hunt 
>>to hang BC.

   it does make you wonder.  from an s&l perspective, madison was picked
   as a target of investigation by accident.  jim mcdougal was already
   looked at once and walked; unfortunately for him, his old business
   partner found a new high profile job that brought him back into the
   limelight.  it would be nice to see an effort like this put forth
   at a thousand other s&l's around the country. it would be expensive,
   but well worth it, imo.

   bill

    <<< Note 26.94 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
             -< why is what you read gospel and what I read junk? >-

I don't know about your area, but the Glob (about as liberal an ownership 
as any paper I know of -- except maybe Haag's back yard) ran big 
stories on the draft issue and Flowers during the campaign. Certainly no 
less the Newt's deal - in fact a lot more.

What I read ISN'T gospel. But mainstream media, who's stated mission is to 
cover all of the news, is more credible than back-alley media who's stated 
mission is to promote an ideal.

         <<< Note 26.92 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

                       <<< Note 26.100 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

         <<< Note 26.92 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

Oops. Not only missed the snarf, but lost the line I did type:

Caricature is the tool of the clueless.

There. I said it.

         <<< Note 26.98 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>

Believe me, I'm not defending McDougal.  

    
    RE: .96 .97
    
    I'm not interested in how many were indicted. I want want to know how 
    many Reagan Justice Department officials were convicted. 
    
    Paul       

    USMVS::DAVIS
    
    >Caricature is the tool of the clueless.
  
    >There. I said it.
    
    Somehow, I managed to miss this yesterday. There are many unflattering
    things you could call me, all of which would be true. However, clueless
    is not one of them. When I lack a clue, I keep my mouth shut. A lesson,
    based upon your performance in the gun control topics, that you should
    surely take note of.
    
    I stand by everything I said about BC and HC.
    
    -b

         <<< Note 26.104 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

    
>    I stand by everything I said about BC and HC.
    
I'm sure you do. Sadly, all of us who are guilty of cluelessnes from time 
to time, don't know it when we are. Otherwise, we would, as you say, keep 
our mouths shut.

>                   <<< Note 26.105 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>
>
>         <<< Note 26.104 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>
>
>    
>>    I stand by everything I said about BC and HC.
>    
>I'm sure you do. Sadly, all of us who are guilty of cluelessnes from time 
>to time, don't know it when we are. Otherwise, we would, as you say, keep 
>our mouths shut.

A sure sign that you are getting your point across to the "other side" is
when the personal insults start.  It's great!

Bruce

    the repubs have initiated an exceptional strategy on this WW business.
    they basically shelved it for now. brilliant. it would be politically
    damaging for the repubs to launch an all out WW attack on slick right
    now. slick would retreat into the "i'm being unjustly persecuted" mode
    that might work. muricans are so gullible. but this WON'T go away. you
    can bet the repubs will continue the investigations, quietly, and then
    bring new and very damaging evidence to bear when i will count much
    more. like early in 1996. doing so now will give the appearance of the
    repubs gloating. plenty of time for these chickens to come home to
    roost. and they will come home. gotta love this political crap. 

    they're holding it over to use during the election campaigns next year. 
    This is brilliant?  mayhap it'll backfire on them completely, that
    stooge D'Amato posturing about ethical lapses will get quite a bit of
    attention himself.  Holding off the hearings now and resurrecting them
    for the elections could just as easily bite the GOP.  The people simply
    don't care.
    
    DougO

     <<< Note 26.108 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>

>The people simply
>    don't care.
 
	I seem to remember others saying much the same thing about
	a "two-bit break in".

	;-)

Jim

   Jim, back when Watergate *was* just a two-bit break-in, the people didn't
   care, no.  When it eventually surfaced that the burglars were in the
   employ of the Nixon White House and that Nixon himself directed the
   cover-up, the people cared.
   
   Right now, I don't care that Webb Hubbell overbilled his clients except
   to see that Webb gets what's coming to him.  If, eventually, it surfaces
   that Bill Clinton himself is (and I'm not sure I care if it's "was")
   involved, then I will care.

                   <<< Note 26.110 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                    -< Show us the evidence and we'll care >-

	Decry the investigation. Tell us that "the people" really
	don't care. THEN ask for the evidence.

	What's wrong with this picture?

Jim

Note 26.108 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >Holding off the hearings now and resurrecting them
    >for the elections could just as easily bite the GOP. 
    
    maybe. but i doubt it. the repubs got a year to dig into this. and
    there is dirty laundry in there. we just don't know how much because of
    all the stonewalling and coverups. a sitting president can exert great
    power to cover the truth. i suspect that has been done ridgidly over 
    the last couple of years. slick may not be so stupid to be involved in
    coverups while in office. THAT would really be stupid. however, there
    are certainly many close to the president that will sacrifice much to
    keep the jackals away from slick.
    
    anyway you look at it the repubs are in charge of the next play. how
    and when they play is their choice. don't smartly, with new evidence,
    slick could be serious trouble. it must be terribly stressful being the
    president and having to look over your back to see what past
    transgressions you committed will be dug up next. this guy and his
    witch are dirty. you'll see.
    
    i predict that, if he even runs, and if he is even nominated, he won't
    come within 20 percentage points of the repub winner. it will be a
    political massacre. 

    > Decry the investigation. Tell us that "the people" really
    > don't care. THEN ask for the evidence.
    >
    > What's wrong with this picture?
            
    
    Overexposure.  Chicken Little has been screaming about the whitewater
    sky falling for more than two years and there's been no substantial
    finding, no indication that anything other than what Clinton said
    happened, that they lost money in a bad real-estate deal 15 years ago,
    happened.  That's what is wrong with the picture.
    
    DougO

    >the repubs got a year to dig into this.
    
    D'Amato said he was holding off on hearings out of deference to the
    independent investigator.  'repubs' aren't digging into this.
    
    > i predict that, if he even runs, and if he is even nominated, he
    > won't come within 20 percentage points of the repub winner. it will 
    > be a political massacre.
    
    Too bad we won't be able to discuss this after the fact, what with you
    leaving.  But that certainly depends, as has been mentioned many times
    before, on who the GOP puts up to run.  You guys run Quayle, you lose.
    
    DougO

    >Too bad we won't be able to discuss this after the fact, what with you
    >leaving.
    
    don't bet on it.

    
    Actually, I take D'Amato at his word here.  He wants nothing more
    than to track down and subpoena Vince's papers, for example, wherever
    they are found.  But Starr is indicting folks - first the McDougals,
    now Hubbell, and rumor has it, quite a few more coming.  So D'Amato
    will wait till Starr has got who he can.  Then, D'Amato will hold
    hearings into the abuses of power thus exposed, in order to make
    them fully known to the nation and discourage future peculaters.
    
    Exactly how any public-spirited opposition leader ought to do.
    
      bb

    If it wasn't for Deep Throat, W&B at the POST and Judge Sirica, Nixon
    never had gotten caught either...the republican WH was able to
    stonewall the investigation for well over a year after the inital
    break-in...

   That's nothing.  By your accounts the Clintons have been stonewalling
   for sixteen years now 8^)

    Where'd I say that, Wordy?

    
    Steve, how much have you contributed to the Clinton Defense fund?
    
    Paul
    

   I meant the "you" generically.
   
   I have contributed to the Clinton Defense Fund exactly the same amount
   as I contributed to the Paula Jones Defense Fund, which, in turn, is
   exactly the same amount all of you contributed.

    Wordy:
    
    For being the legendary nitpicker that you are, I am astonished that
    you used the generic "you" and not me specifically.
    
    Haven't I told you about using broad generalizations?  "-)

   Well, I think I could successfully argue that you, Ron, have said that
   the Clintons are lying about Whitewater.  We could dig through the last
   two editions of the 'Box, or you could just stipulate that such is your
   opinion...  I certainly wouldn't quarrel with someone who held such an
   opinion.

    Wordy:
    
    Go ahead, you're find that Easty, Haagster, MadMike and I were all
    calling for an independent investigator, not the Gonzalez-led
    whitewashing expedition.  I believe we were all pretty adament about
    stating that the stated facts by the Rodham/Clinton duo didn't match to
    the reportings, first by local press in Arkansas, then the WSJ and a
    London daily...the mainstream press in the US still hasn't investigated
    WW with the same tenacity that Watergate received.  This is where your
    broadbrushing comes into play.  Nixon was a liar, cheap and scum, and I
    called him on the carpet for it.  With the WW investigations, you've
    rigorously have defended Rodham/Clinton when they has certainly been
    some speculation on the above mentioned periodicals that something was
    amiss...
    
    Look, Hillaryistica learned well serving on the staff for the
    congressional hearings of Watergate; she knows when evidence needs to
    be disposed of, compared to how Nixon wanted to keep the tapes for
    historical value.  
    
    Single pieces of circumstantial evidence is not enough to bring the
    serious charges against the First Family, but pieced together with all
    that is currently investigated and that material which was stonewalled
    by Gonzales, may be enough to bring criminal charges.  
    
    For the sake of the nation, I *hope* the Rodham/Clinton are innocent. 
    I lived during Watergate and it tore up the nation so much and Nixon
    should have resigned, for the good of the country, 6 months earlier.  I
    would hope the First Family would learn from history and if there are
    serious skeletons waiting to be discovered, pass into the sunset
    quietly.
    
    'Course, many FOBs would like to have re-thought their original
    intention of blowing the whistle on Rodham/Clinton and look where
    they're residing these days...

    .125
    
    Very well put, Ron.
    
    

                      <<< Note 26.106 by AQU027::HADDAD >>>
                           -< Ya gotta love THE BOX >-
    
>>>    I stand by everything I said about BC and HC.
>>    
>>I'm sure you do. Sadly, all of us who are guilty of cluelessnes from time 
>>to time, don't know it when we are. Otherwise, we would, as you say, keep 
>>our mouths shut.

>A sure sign that you are getting your point across to the "other side" is
>when the personal insults start.  It's great!

Huh?

    i've been saying EXACTLY this for years now. this guy is a bit more
    articulate. perhaps he is a writer by trade. however, this admin is
    coming unglued. and that will be very VERY bad for all.
    
============================================================
The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
============================================================
Prudential Securities / Potomac Perspective / Dec.14, 1994
By Mark L. Melcher


                   THE GATHERING STORM
                   +++++++++++++++++++

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the United States is
about to enter a very troubled period of political soul-searching,
marked by multiple revelations of scandal and corruption at the
very highest levels of government.

WEBSTER HUBBELL'S TRANSGRESSIONS ARE NO SURPRISE...The disclosure
last week that Webster Hubbell, a best friend of Bill Clinton, a
former close business associate of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the
former number-three man at the U.S. Department of Justice, is a liar
and a thief was handled by the mainstream media as some sort of
anomalous "tragedy" that "surprised everyone."  But the fact is that
Hubbell's transgressions have been an open secret for a very long 
time both in Little Rock and in Washington, and the ethical stench
surrounding the Clinton administration has been easily discernible
to anyone who has been paying attention.

...AND NO TRAGEDY.  The tragedy is not Hubbell's personal disgrace.
The tragedy is that his actions appear to be the tip of an iceberg of
hubris and corruption that promises to shake the Clinton administration
to its very core and roil the equity, fixed-income, and currency
markets across the world for many, many months to come.

The tragedy is the toll that the scandal, as it unfolds, will have on
public confidence in government, and on the United States' potential 
for moral leadership around the world.  This is not just a tragedy,
it is an outrage.

THEY ARE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.  I am trying not to wax sanctimonious
here.  But I do want to drive home the point that the situation in
Washington is very, very serious.

I am not going to attempt to detail the web of sleaze that is likely
to be revealed by upcoming plea agreements with Special Prosecutor
Kenneth Starr and by Whitewater hearings in both the Senate and the
House.  Even those trusting souls whose primary source of information
is THE NEW YORK TIMES ought by now to have a reasonable outline in
their heads of the kinds of trouble ahead for Bill and Hillary Clinton
and their many friends and business associates in Washington and Little
Rock.

I would note, however, that the terms of Hubbell's agreement with Starr
require him to "cooperate by providing full, complete, accurate, and
truthful information concerning matters inder investigation by the 
office of the Independent Counsel."  That Hubbell will honor the terms 
of this agreement to the letter is unquestioned.  Count on it.  That's
the way it works.  Starr recommends a reduced sentence if Hubbell tells
everything he knows.  If Hubbell holds back anything, and Starr catches
him at it, Starr recommends that Hubbell be treated harshly, and he uses
everything Hubbell has told him to date against him.

There will be people who scream foul; who will argue that the Clintons
"mean well" and should be left alone.  All I can say is that they may
be right, but it doesn't matter.  The Whitewater train is coming down
the track and, right or wrong, good or bad, it isn't going to stop until
it completes the trip.

Arguments that Starr's investigation and the upcoming hearings will be
"bad for the country," and therefore should be stopped, are similar to
statements I heard early in the year from people who believed that
Whitewater wouldn't become an important issue because "nobody cares
about it."

THERE'S ONE CENTRAL ISSUE...I said in a February 1994 STRATEGY WEEKLY
article entitled "SHOALS OF WHITEWATER II" that I agreed that nobody
at the time cared.  But, I said, "the fact is that it doesn't make one
bit of difference right now whether the public cares or not, or whether
THE NEW YORK TIMES, or THE WASHINGTON POST, or even THE NEW REPUBLIC'S
Michael Kinsley cares.

"According to the polls," a majority of the public believed a medal
should be awarded to the lady who shot and killed in a public courtroom
the pervert who molested her son.  Yet she is about to begin a ten-year
stretch in the pokey.

"All that matters now, and all that should be considered when attempting
to judge whether the scandals surrounding the Clintons are important, is
whether either of the Clintons broke the law, or whether anyone closely
linked to them politically broke the law, and whether if any of them did,
it can be proven."  Last February, this was an open question.  Today it
is less so.  Webb almost certainly knows the answers.  And he will
eventually tell.

...CAN IT BE PROVEN THE CLINTONS BROKE THE LAW?  Among other things,
Hubbell was attorney for Madison Guarantee and for Frost & Co., Madison's
accountants.  He was also attorney for Beverly Enterprises (Whitewater
aficionados will remember that one), Tyson Foods, and Worthen Bank.
(Who could forget Worthen Bank?)  He was also on the board and attorney
for POM Inc., the nation's largest parking-meter manufacturer, owned by
his father-in-law Seth Ward.  If you haven't heard of the POM connection
to Whitewater, you will.

Finally, it should be noted that Webb drafted the statute that created
the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (AFDA).  The AFDA, which was
established to provide loans to businesses that couldn't gain conventional
financing, was statutorily completely under the control of then-Governor
Bill Clinton.  Its first loan was made to POM.

My guess is that the Whitewater revelations that will be coming out in
the very near future are likely to be so explosive that the issue will
dominate the Washington scene throughout the first half of next year,
at least.

Not only will the Clinton White House have to deal with Starr's operation,
but it looks as though Don Smaltz, the special prosecutor named to 
investigate out-going Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, will be giving
them fits also.  According to THE NEW YORK TIMES, Smaltz's shop has
expanded to include a staff of "three dozen lawyers and FBI agents -
rivaling the size of Mr. Starr's staff," and has expanded its inquiry
"far beyond" initial accusations of personal ties between Tyson Foods
and Espy.

THIS WILL DIVERT VALUABLE TIME AND ATTENTION FROM IMPORTANT ECONOMIC
ISSUES...It will, in my opinion, so egulf both Clintons that serious 
people will question whether they can continue to govern.  In a column
entitled "NOBODY'S AT HOME," super-liberal NEW YORK TIMES columnist
Anthony Lewis has already raised the question of whether Clinton is
paying attention.

"Weakness and vacuity are what we see in the Clinton Administration.
It moves from day to day, empty of vision, a Government without a design.
Mr. Clinton himself seems more and more like Herman Melville's Bartleby
the Scrivener, a dwindling, haunting presence in the White House."

...AND FURTHER UNSETTLE FINANCIAL MARKETS.  All of this, in turn, will
erode confidence in the government, and it is axiomatic that confidence
is a necessary ingredient for happy financial markets.  Fasten your
set belts everyone, we are entering some very rough air.

    Gee...I guess character does matter after all.  What an expensive
    lesson you all had to learn!
    
    -Jack

    "web of sleaze".
    
    It's got a certain ring to it.

    
    
    Ah yes!!... But it's so much better to have Slick than Bush cause Bush
    was a liar... not much else, but a liar... and we can't have that now
    can we? 
    
     So much better.. yes... better...
    
     Excuse me whilst I go stick my head back in the sand...
    

           <<< Note 26.128 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

If you want to substantiate your speculation with another man's 
speculation, feel free. By the way, the thrust of the article isn't that 
the Clintons are guilty of anything, only that the scandal surrounding his 
associates will have devestating consequences. If he's right, shame on your 
republican pals for risking the well being of the country to make political 
hay. Senate hearings on Whitewater would be a travesty! The lowest of lows 
in politics.

I have no problem with investigating potential past transgressions, and I'm 
all for due persuit of the S&L sleazes, but this is a sitting president and 
these are accuasations about actions that did not occur during his 
presidency and have no relation the performance of his duties, so they 
should be done quietly, if not in secret. If REAL transgressions are 
revealed by the investigations, then and only then should it become public. 
But the goal here has never been justice or the truth; it's to screw 
Clinton and pay back for Watergate and Iran/Contra -- which WERE justified, 
because they pertained to actions of a sitting president WHILE in office.

Note 26.132 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS
    
>If you want to substantiate your speculation with another man's 
>speculation, feel free. By the way, the thrust of the article isn't that 
>the Clintons are guilty of anything, only that the scandal surrounding his 
>associates will have devestating consequences. If he's right, shame on your 
>republican pals for risking the well being of the country to make political 
>hay. Senate hearings on Whitewater would be a travesty! The lowest of lows 
>in politics.

    so you're saying it isn't important, for the good of the country, for
    americans to find out if their president isn't a liar, crook, and
    overall sleaze bag. is that what you're defending?
    
>I have no problem with investigating potential past transgressions, and I'm 
>all for due persuit of the S&L sleazes, but this is a sitting president and 
>these are accuasations about actions that did not occur during his 
>presidency and have no relation the performance of his duties, so they 
    
    what bs. this presidents core values dictate his methodology for
    executing the functions of his office. if he has lied and cheated his
    way through life, he will lie and cheat his way through a presidency.
    if he doesn't get caught.
    
    
>should be done quietly, if not in secret. If REAL transgressions are 
>revealed by the investigations, then and only then should it become public. 
>But the goal here has never been justice or the truth; it's to screw 
>Clinton and pay back for Watergate and Iran/Contra -- which WERE justified, 
    
    hypocrite. bush/reagan were NEVER charged, were NEVER convicted of any
    transgressions about the alledged Iran contra affair. yet its OK in
    your book to attempt trashing presidents with that. but not slick for
    alledged sexual misconduct, defrauding the government, potential money
    laundering, and a host of other peculularities? 
    
    tag 'im and bag im, dano. this guy is nutz!

    >shame on your republican pals for risking the well being of the 
    >country to make political hay. Senate hearings on Whitewater 
    >would be a travesty!
    
     How sleazy of them to steal the democrats' birthright.

           <<< Note 26.133 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

    
>    tag 'im and bag im, dano. this guy is nutz!

If you can't see the difference between in-office transgressions 
(especially ones that challenge constitutional balance of powers!) and 
10-years-prior transgressions in the private sector, *you're* nuts.

    re:  26.132
    
    By this logic Spiro T Agnew should have been president instead of
    Gerald Ford.  Spiro stepped down because of "financial irregularities"
    that occurred during his term as governor of Maryland.  He plead nolo
    to the charges.
    
    /jim

Note 26.135 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS
    
>If you can't see the difference between in-office transgressions 
>(especially ones that challenge constitutional balance of powers!) and 
>10-years-prior transgressions in the private sector, *you're* nuts.
    
    dodge and weave. dodge and weave. regardless of the timeframes do
    americans have the right to know whether or not their elected
    president, the most powerful office in the world, is a crook?
    yes or no? i can't make it any more simple for you.

    
    But the Republicans have done nothing much yet.  It's Starr.  He's
    just doing his (non-political) job - catching the crooks.
    
    What, does somebody think he shouldn't ?  I don't get it.
    
      bb

           <<< Note 26.137 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    dodge and weave. dodge and weave. regardless of the timeframes do
>    americans have the right to know whether or not their elected
>    president, the most powerful office in the world, is a crook?
>    yes or no? i can't make it any more simple for you.

Read my original note again, cowboy. I said he should be investigated - but 
not by the senate and not by the press. It's pure horse spit politics that 
it's gotten as much attention as it has -- and you know it. If the evidence 
bears out criminal - or even ethical - misconduct, a la Agnew, 
we should here about it. Until then, bugger off. 

                      <<< Note 26.138 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                        -< Hearings never held yet... >-

>    But the Republicans have done nothing much yet.  It's Starr.  He's

Yeah, but that bastion of ethical probity, Alfonse D'Amoto (SP?), is loudly 
champing at the bit. There will be hearings. 

    
    RE: .139
    
    So.... who would you leave the investigation to?
    

Note 26.139 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS
    
>Read my original note again, cowboy. I said he should be investigated - but 
>not by the senate and not by the press. It's pure horse spit politics that 
    
    do you realize how stupid this sounds? how the hell do you propose to
    investigate a sitting president without the senate or press getting
    involved? that's like thinking you could walk stark naked down madison
    avenue at high noon, with sparklers in each hand, and 3 pigeons doing a
    tap dance on your head, and thinking no one is going to notice.
    
    so who do you propose investigate this? the AR state police? park
    rangers?

           <<< Note 26.142 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    so who do you propose investigate this? the AR state police? park
>    rangers?

Whatsamaatter with Starr? Isn't he Right enough for you? Clearly Republican 
Fisk wasn't. But I'm perfectly willing to have anyone who is qualified to 
perform such investigations do so.

Note 26.143 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>Whatsamaatter with Starr? Isn't he Right enough for you? Clearly Republican 
>Fisk wasn't. But I'm perfectly willing to have anyone who is qualified to 
>perform such investigations do so.
    
    dodge and weave. dodge and weave. how do you propose to keep the senate
    and press corps out of an intensive investigation of a sitting
    president?

           <<< Note 26.144 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    dodge and weave. dodge and weave. how do you propose to keep the senate
>    and press corps out of an intensive investigation of a sitting
>    president?

Listen up, rabid bohemian. You can't keep the press out. If they smell 
blood, they're on you faster than a school of perahna. Which is why all 
this bellyaching about the media playing soft with this is just so much 
whining. If there were anything of real substance pointing to Clinton as 
guilty of anything improper, you'd be hearing about it. 

The senate's another matter. They're supposed to have some self control and 
the interests of the country foremost in their mind. If there's a question
of ethical misconduct among one of their own, they seem to have no problem
holding hearings behind closed doors. In fact, it's one of their RULES. 
Because they know that suspicion alone is enough to cripple you. But they 
don't seem concened about crippling their president, the commander and 
chief and sole U.S. arm into the rest of the world. You seem to be worried 
about our prestige in the world, but your favorite GOP partisans don't.

Face it, gene, you've had a burr in your saddle about Clinton from the 
start. You guys thought you'd put any vestige of liberalism in its grave 
with Reagan. Hell, you could even elect a babbling, wishy-washy Bush on the 
shear momentum of the conservative juggernaut. Then along comes this smooth 
talking centrist liberal who, with the help of Ross-man, took the reins 
from you and it drives you crazy. You and every other right-wing loony in 
washington. And y'all've done everything in your power to discredit, 
humiliate, and disrupt his presidency ever since. And you talk about sour 
grapes!

If you could only see how foaming-mouthed irrational your rantings about "Slick 
and the Witch" make you look...

Merry Christmas, Cowboy.

    
    tony snow predicts 1995 will bring an indictment of "a member of the
    clinton family" by independent counsel kenneth starr.
    
    also, time to dump your pesos.  tony also predicts that the mexican
    economy will collapse. 
    
    bill

    Bill:
    
    I said in the last edition of the 'Box that Hillary will be the one to 
    bring down the Clintons and I stand by that prediction.
    
    Ron

    
    of the gang of 4 from Rose Law Firm, one is dead (Foster), one
    resigned in disgrace and is in hiding (Kennedy), one pleaded guility
    and awaits sentenceing (Hubell) and last one left and not seen in the 
    open lately is Hillary. 
    
    Lets face it, noose is getting tight slowly but surely and soon it
    will be time again to feel the pain, only this time their own.

>         <<< Note 26.146 by GLDOA::SHOOK "head 'em up, move 'em out" >>>

    
>    also, time to dump your pesos.  tony also predicts that the mexican
>    economy will collapse. 
    
Heard over the weekend that Mexico devalued the peso, US investors lost
about TEN BILLION (that is with a _B_ BILLION) over night.

They will always do these things on a weekend so the average person can't move 
his/her money but the "connected" folks in banking can move it during the 
weekend.

I would bet on further collapse of the peso. This devaluation may not have 
been enough.

    that happened middle of last week.  and with all economic events, their
    are both winners and losers.  holders of pesos lost 20-30% of their
    value very fast; that hit anybody who had repatriated flight capital,
    small savers trying to build a nest egg, and investors into securities
    and other financial instruments.  The government had a very tough
    choice; they've been defending the peso against the dollar for far too
    long in order to build a strong investment climate; but the costs were
    too high, and were pushing inflation.  If they haven't totally paniced
    the markets, then they'll come out with a much stronger economy where
    the peso will find its equilibrium value by the invisible hand of the
    amrket instead of at the former, unstable artificial level.  Now, for
    anybody looking to invest in Mexico, there are some real bargains to be
    had; everything is 30% cheaper!  The tourism industry and their
    customers will be the big winner; their prices are stable, but the
    foreigners now get 30% more purchasing power with their dollars, yen,
    and pounds; so anybody who wants a cheap vacation in Mexico this year
    can have one.
    
    DougO

>    tony snow predicts 1995 will bring an indictment of "a member of the
>    clinton family" by independent counsel kenneth starr.

Socks?

    Gerald:
    
    Sox has 9 lives to escape the pen...

    WH occupants gotta be real nervous about 1/3. their hopes of a
    whitewash will only be half realized opening the gates for exploration
    aimed at the real truth. something its quite obvious no one around the
    first family, nor slick and the witch herself, wants to see happen.
    this admin is going to implode in '95. gawd its going to be ugly for
    the united states of america.

    Gene:
    
    The saddest thing would be for one of these nuts to make Bill a martyr
    in the JFK fashion

    i don't think anyone will take a pot shot at slick. it would be
    horrible if they did. he won't be around long anyway. it should be
    great fun watching his presidency implode this coming years. it won't
    be fun watching it tear his family apart. i don't wish that on anyone.
    even those i don't respect. his family will suffer because i believe
    they've a marriage of convienence. little more. i feel sorry for
    chelsea.
    
    what's even worse is the fate of our domestic and international policy.
    a sitting president, fighting to maintain the office, is an ugly
    adventure. we've seen that before. it consumes the president and his
    staff. everything else suffers. throw in a wife whose love of power and
    probable past transgressions and you've got a real powder keg.

    Clinton's been in hot water before.  His presidency has been a
    disappointment so far, that's for sure, but I'm an optimist.  He's
    gonna look a lot more powerful squashing all those GOP programs with a
    big VETO stamp.  It worked for Bush, didn't it?
    
    oh.  well, anyway.
    
    DougO

    Where I'm going I'll be far from retaliation and cries of "I told you
    so!", but if I'm right the sound of gnashing teeth will easily carry to
    my office...!  So:
    
    	Four more years!

    .147

   > I said in the last edition of the 'Box that Hillary will be the one to 
   > bring down the Clintons and I stand by that prediction.
    
   well ron, she may well get all of the credit, but no one ever had
   a better supporting cast.  8^)

   bill

    wordy,
    
    when he's creamed in the next election i'll be taking a personal
    interest in finding you to let you know: i told you so.
    
    nothing personal. just realistic murican politics.

    re.	Note 26.133   
    
>>should be done quietly, if not in secret. If REAL transgressions are 
>>revealed by the investigations, then and only then should it become public. 
>>But the goal here has never been justice or the truth; it's to screw 
>>Clinton and pay back for Watergate and Iran/Contra -- which WERE justified, 
    
  >  hypocrite. bush/reagan were NEVER charged, were NEVER convicted of any
  >  transgressions about the alledged Iran contra affair. yet its OK in
  >  your book to attempt trashing presidents with that. but not slick for
  >  alledged sexual misconduct, defrauding the government, potential money
  >  laundering, and a host of other peculularities? 
   
     I guess You must fall under your own Hypocrite label Gene. You are
    complaining about Trashing Bush/Reagan with things they were never
    charged with, yet Clinton has not been charged with ANYTHING (Paula
    Jones lawsuit is a civil suit but if it makes you happy to include that
    I will change my statement to charged with any whitewater related
    incident) and you bash him constantly based on actions for wich he
    hasn't been charged. At least you had the decency to include alledged
    in your statement. I don't think you are capable of a rational assement
    of any news regarding the Clinton administration. You hatred of him
    runs to deep. I think that if If the sky opened up and God himself said
    that Clinton was innocent you would claim that the Dems had
    misinterpreted his words.
    
    								S.R.
    
    
    P.S. What has the peso got to do with Whitewater, am I missing
    something? 
      

    ]He's gonna look a lot more powerful squashing all those GOP programs
    ]with a big VETO stamp.
    
     If he's that silly to provide republicans with an excuse for failing
    to deliver (just put in our guy and you'll get what we promised and did
    our part to deliver) then he's even stupider than I thought. Of course,
    he won't veto everything; the chameleon will simply blend into the
    scenery and hope that he gets sent back for not sticking out too much.
    
     re: marriage of convenience
    
     I wonder if Clinton will be the first president to be divorced after
    taking office (or former president.) I'd bet Shrillary would get a kick
    out of that kind of notoriety.

    >] He's gonna look a lot more powerful squashing all those GOP programs
    >] with a big VETO stamp.
    >    
    > If he's that silly to provide republicans with an excuse for failing
    > to deliver (just put in our guy and you'll get what we promised and did
    > our part to deliver) then he's even stupider than I thought.
    
    I dunno; you've previously indicated you thought he was pretty stupid.
    And the GOP is gonna play that card against him anyway; what's he got
    to lose?  Why, everybody who thinks the GOP programs *should* be
    vetoed.  That's everybody who thinks orphanages are a bad idea,
    everybody who thinks that health care reform shouldn't have been
    stopped dead in the last Congress, everybody who thinks that our
    miniscule foreign aid budget is a mousenuts issue relative to the size
    of the deficit at best, and should be increased, if anything; in short,
    anybody who hasn't bought the GOP lullabies at face value and
    recognizes just what is ridiculous about them will be encouraging the
    vetoes, and will definately desert Clinton if he doesn't use his power
    responsibly.  Not to mention the die-hard leftists, who have a vested
    interest in payback.  Clinton's got to completely rebuild his
    constituency; there's only a few viable ways to do it.  Playing ball
    with the GOP is one way, sure, but don't let your wet dreams destroy
    your objectivity; it isn't the only way.  And if the GOP is on a
    whitewater body hunt then why should he?  They don't call off d'Amato
    he'll rebuild a different way; with all the dirty tricks the dems have
    learned from the minority party in the last decade, and the veto pen,
    he can shut them down hard and make them look just as ineffective. 
    They play slavering attack-dog politics with whitewater, that's what
    he'll do.  Stupid?  Yeah, but what's he got to lose?  Newt plays
    hardball, he'll get spitters back.  GOP can be made to look pretty
    stupid, too, and they don't look to be trying to hard to avoid forcing
    that to happen.
    
    DougO

>    Not to mention the die-hard leftists, who have a vested
>    interest in payback.  
    
    	Hey, Doug, you didn't need to put your name at the bottom of the
    	entry.  You painted yourself into the middle of the picture like
    	Michelangelo did in the Sistine Chapel!

Note 26.160 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
    
    > I guess You must fall under your own Hypocrite label Gene. You are
    >complaining about Trashing Bush/Reagan with things they were never
    >charged with, yet Clinton has not been charged with ANYTHING (Paula
    >Jones lawsuit is a civil suit but if it makes you happy to include that
    >I will change my statement to charged with any whitewater related
    >incident) and you bash him constantly based on actions for wich he
    >hasn't been charged. 
    
    comprehension is getting might scarce in the 'box these days. if you
    will recall my biggest complaint about slick is two fold.
    
      1. incompetence. he's simply not cut out for the job. that's not a
         crime. tho the consequences are horribly painful. even his own 
         party leaders have stated publically they don't know which issues
         slick will back with a strength of conviction a president must
         have. that's disasterous for the US and his party.
    
      2. lack of character. again, mostly not a crime. but there is no doubt
         he lied during the campaign. repeatedly. then failed to
         acknowledge it and accept responsiblity. one cannot help but feel
         that he runs his presidential affairs much the same as the
         previous positions he's held. its human nature. and in this case,
         very bad indeed.
    
    >I don't think you are capable of a rational assement
    >of any news regarding the Clinton administration. You hatred of him
    >runs to deep. 
    
    then you don't remember very well. i opposed his election with every
    legal means available to me. when he won i stated, in this very forum,
    that i hoped he would become the best president this country every had.
    for the sake of the republic. his domestic policy is a shambles and he 
    has turned the office of the president into an international
    laughing stock. so tell me steve, what is YOUR rational assessment of
    this administration?

    The only "vested interest" I have in payback is to watch you silly
    soapbox right-wingers eat the ashes of your dreams for a few delicious
    years until you get it through your heads that the way forward is not
    left or right, its through the center, building coalitions in the
    middle-of-the-road shared by most thinking Americans.
    
    DougO

    	When you join that middle-of-the-road, perhaps we can talk.

Note 26.161 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
    
    >>     re: marriage of convenience
    >>
    >> I wonder if Clinton will be the first president to be divorced after
    >>taking office (or former president.) I'd bet Shrillary would get a kick
    >>out of that kind of notoriety.
    
    i dunno doc. i'm not sure this marriage will last this presidents one
    and only term of office. if their very shaky power base begins
    crumbling the witch just may figure there is more to be gained by
    bolting. its entirely possible.

    	Perhaps you should place that one in the 1995 predictions, Gene.

    They might want to stay married for practical purposes, i.e.
    
    
    spouses can't be forced to testify against one another :-}
    

    I'm already there.  I'm for fiscal responsibility, not a middle class
    tax cut.  I'm for the 2nd amendment, not the gun grabbers.  I'm for
    personal responsibility, not school prayer.  I'm for downsizing the
    federal government.  I'm for an activist foreign policy addressed to
    free trade and leadership in population control, promotion of democracy
    (which takes foreign aid subsidies), and strong relationships with our
    natural allies in Europe- though with substantially more burden sharing.
    
    these *are* middle-of-the-road positions, Joe- too bad your
    fundamentalist stance there in Colorado Springs, with your limited
    newspaper coverage of the world around you, so limits your vision that
    you can't seem to recognize it.
    
    DougO

    	When you get down to attacking "my" newspaper, we know you've
    	run out of anything of value for arguments.
    
    	You can keep your middle-of-the-road population control and
    	play in the middle of the road with it.  You're a Godless liberal
    	feminist, and no amount of squaking on your part is going to
    	change that, nor will it change what is really middle-of-the-road.

Note 26.170 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >these *are* middle-of-the-road positions, Joe- too bad your
    >fundamentalist stance there in Colorado Springs, with your limited
    >newspaper coverage of the world around you, so limits your vision that
    >you can't seem to recognize it.
    
    thats a laughable statement DougO. there is enough info on world events
    available to one and all to keep everyone busy for 5 lifetimes. some
    simply choose to remain in the dark. but blaming it on a local
    newspaper? 

    and when *you*, Joe, resort to attacking my stance as "godless" as if
    that disqualifies it, then you reveal your own limitations from debate.
    
    Gene, Joe and I have had many go-arounds about his newspaper and his
    access to information, and in general he has conceded that his
    newspaper filters more than just cartoons from him, and that he can't
    know what else it has hidden from him.
    
    DougO

    re .172
    
    haag,
    
    Wait until you have read the local rag for a month or two.  As Frank
    says it when our out of town paper fails to arrive and he calls
    circulation, "We need at least, just right wing, instead of far right."
    Your world vision gets biased after reading what the local editors
    put in if you don't pull from another news source for balance.
    
    meg

>    and when *you*, Joe, resort to attacking my stance as "godless" as if
>    that disqualifies it, then you reveal your own limitations from debate.
    
    	It *does* disqualify it for me, just as you disqualify thumperism.
    	Don't go getting hypoctitically indignant on us now...
    
>    access to information, and in general he has conceded that his
>    newspaper filters more than just cartoons from him, and that he can't
>    know what else it has hidden from him.
    
    	My concession was that any -- **ANY** -- news source will filter
    	something due to whatever bias they have.  Any source.  Do you
    	disageree?  Do you think SHMN has no bias?
    
    	However, you are untruthfully making up the part about me not 
    	knowing what might be hidden from me.  Anything to foster your 
    	boogeymen, I guess.  You presume that others limit themselves 
    	to only one source.  Take your petty prejudices elsewhere!
    
    	You know, it's funny.  In another topic you mistakenly gave 
    	yourself credit for scaring others off, or some such nonsense.
    	Here you under-credit yourself.  You should realize that you
    	are also a source of info for me -- not only as a source of
    	info from a different point of view, but lately with your
    	multi-postings here from your various news feeds.  Now don't
    	go getting cocky on us with some new-found sense of self
    	importance...

    >   My concession was that any -- **ANY** -- news source will filter
    >	something due to whatever bias they have.  Any source.  Do you
    >	disageree?  Do you think SHMN has no bias?
    >   
    > 	However, you are untruthfully making up the part about me not 
    >	knowing what might be hidden from me.
    
    actually, your concession was that censorship was a "price that you
    were willing to pay" for the conservative Colorado Springs paper.
    It was to that willingness to pay the price that I was referring when
    I said that you didn't know what would be hidden from you.  I was not
    being untruthful, merely positioning the truth in a way that you find
    unflattering.
    
    >   In another topic you mistakenly gave yourself credit for scaring
    >   others off, or some such nonsense.
    
    What I said was that prolife thumpers were too wary to take the bait I
    offered about Planned Parenthood winning the contract to provide sex-ed
    services in public schools - when the kicker that I revealed later was
    that the curriculum primarily delivers the abstinence message.  Well,
    most of the knee-jerkers against Planned Parenthood *were* too wary to
    enter the topic (except Andy - he's so gullible).  I didn't say I
    scared them off- I said they were too wary.
    
    And it doesn't disturb me at all to be a redistributor of news.  I
    think that informed debate *requires* information, and there's precious
    little informed debate here; I'm trying to contribute in a positive
    sense to that situation.
    
    DougO

    WHITEWATER folks. WHITEWATER.

    	re .176
    
    	Well your willingness to lie (ie "position the truth") is
    	characteristic of your Bill Clinton, and that characteristic
    	will "position" him right out of the White House, if not 
    	by Whitewater, then through some other "truth positioning".
    
    	(OK, Gene?)

    Don't call me a liar, Joe.  You stated that you were willing to accept
    censorship, that you considered it a "price you were willing to pay".
    Just because it embarasses you doesn't change the fact you said it.
    
    DougO

    	And the rest of what I said along with that?  What of that?
    
    	Are you trying to do to me what you so dishonorably did to
    	Pat Sweeney in his absence -- tell a part of what I said 
    	("position the truth") so that it reflects unfavorably on me?
    
    	At least I'm here to speak up for myself.  I'm surprised you
    	have the bravery to do that this time when the "victim" is
    	here to set the record straight.
    
    	Where is your honor?  Why not tell what else I said about it?

RE. Note 26.164   BY HAAG::HAAG    
   
    
>    then you don't remember very well. i opposed his election with every
>    legal means available to me. when he won i stated, in this very forum,
>    that i hoped he would become the best president this country every had.
>    for the sake of the republic.
    
    Sorry, I was hired by DEC in Aug of 1993, so I wasn't a box reader
    then. 
    
>   so tell me steve, what is YOUR rational assessment of
>   this administration?
    
    I'm disapointed wiht it. I had hoped Clinton, as a centerist, would be
    able to work with both parties in congress to get his legislation
    advanced. Instead He has allowed boht parties to bully him. The Repubs
    gladly support him on issues they are for(Nafta Gatt) while making it
    seem that they are doing him a big favor, while opposing all other
    legislation through obstructionism. The Dems, because every vote is so
    critical with the Repubs voting no as a block use there votes to buy
    favors for there states. I think he should have tried to mold the dems
    into a more cohesive force. I have differnt opinions on differnt areas
    of his performance. 
    
    Somalia, was a big screw up, but he didn't get us into it. Hopefully he 
    learned the lesson not to overide the military unless you really know
    what your doing. I think the Sec DEF should have resighed imediately
    after that.
    
    Gays in the military. Wasted to much political capital on this. I think
    that they should be allowed in and that the whole thing is stupid, but
    Clinton should have simply issued an exacutive order, and if the JCS
    had a problem, accept their res.
    
    	I am capable of assesing what he has done wrong as well as
    supporting what he does right. Do you believe that there isn't one
    single thing he has done right since he got into office? If not What
    has he done that you approve of, both in substance and style.
    
    
    						            S.R.
    
    

    what else you said about it?  I remembered what was relevant.  Even
    Zarlenga, no fan of mine, admitted I had a point, when I spelled it
    out for you, that you had no way of knowing what else was being
    censored when your editors so blatantly hid unsuitable comic strips
    from their readers. If you'd care to elucidate further, feel free.  
    
    DougO

>    Zarlenga, no fan of mine, admitted I had a point, 
    
    	"a point" is not the whole truth.  To most people at least.
    
>    you had no way of knowing what else was being
>    censored 
    
    	Bingo.  The rest of what I said (and also repeated today, but
    	you've conveniently "forgotten" it already) is that I *DO*
    	have ways of knowing what might not be covered by any one
    	particular source BECAUSE I DON'T LIMIT MYSELF TO THAT SOURCE.
    	(*You*, for instance, can consider yourself another source.
    	Now go thump your chest if you must...)
    
    	But from you I'll expect nothing more than that you'll conveniently
    	"forget" this additional minor detail again.
    
>    I remembered what was relevant. 
    
    	If you were to have added "to me" to the end of that, you would
    	have been more truthful.  But you've already demonstrated that 
    	that is not your concern, but rather merely "positioning the
    	truth", so I really shouldn't be surprised.
    
    	And you claim to have been an Eagle scout.  You bring shame to
    	the rank.

    You may have access to other sources of info, Joe.  But you have no way
    of knowing what your gazette telegraph editors choose not to print
    because of their editorial policy ("too dangerous for Colorado
    Springs"); because they might have other reasons- they hadn't the room
    or didn't think the locals would be interested or ... you have no way
    to know what they choose to deliberately *not* inform you about because
    they *don't* want you informed.  Except in blatant cases, like comic
    strips that you hear about in here.
    
    DougO

    Hey, I *love* it!  Tnx, Joe!  I think I'll wear this 'un for a few notes.

     If you, Joe, don't think that DougO is middle of the road, then you
    are deluding yourself as to what constitutes middle of the road. DougO
    holds some liberal positions, and some conservative positions. On the
    whole he is the type of person that anyone who wants to forge a
    coalition of middle of the road types is going to have to deal with,
    and the sooner you realize that and get over this "godless liberal
    feminist" pejorative kick the sooner you'll be ready to remark
    meaningfully on middle of the road coalitions and consensus. I somehow
    get the feeling that your definition of middle of the road is someone
    who only believes in 98% of your agenda, with 97% and less being
    considered leftists.
    
     And curb the ad hominems. You appear incredibly desperate when you
    resort to them.
    
     Doug's big problem is that he has to get over his retaliatory glee.
    "We're gonna show those republicans a thing or two about sleazy
    politics." No kidding; who do you think they learned them from in the
    first place? The republicans, unlike the democrats, have one shot to do
    things. I, for one, hope it isn't squandered, because the resulting
    democratic swamp will make the USA a lousy place for productive people
    to live.

    	.184
    
    	So what's your point then?  Fine.  I really don't know whether
    	they've chosen not to print it (and for what reason), etc.  The
    	fact is that I still find out about it elsewhere (just as you
    	found out about Netherland's expanding euthanasia policy from
    	something other than your vast array of chosen sources).  
    	Somehow, though, you act as if you know when "my" newspaper is
    	censoring things.  
    
    	And all this to somehow impugn my concept of middle-of-the-road
    	by attacking "my" paper (see .170).  Again, it just goes to show 
    	that you've got nothing left in your arsenel.
    
    	So, mr middle-of-the-road, did you see the latest Gallup poll that
    	shows that a significant majority of Americans support absolute
    	morality?  More and more are moving away from moral relativism?
    	In any demographic category listed, better than 60%, and in most
    	categories better than 70% believed in absolute rights and wrongs.
    	And don't try to tell me that "my" newspaper slanted the article,
    	because it was written by Gallup himself.
    	

    	.186
    
>    and the sooner you realize that and get over this "godless liberal
>    feminist" pejorative kick 
    
    	Mainstream America is not Godless.
    
    	Mainstream America is moving away from liberalism.
    
    	Mainstream America is about as far away from feminist as it
    	can get.
    
    	What are we suppose to say about someone who wears these three
    	labels as badges of honor?
    
    	In truth I realize that Doug *does* hold some middle-of-the-road
    	positions, as do I.  Where he strays to the left seems to be the
    	very same places that I stray to the right.  Where he is extreme
    	to the left, I am to be extreme to the right.  It is over these
    	issues that we clash -- and clash hard.  It is also these issues
    	that I see as most important, and any other middle-of-the-road 
    	positions pale in significance and are therefore of little value
    	in labeling either of us middle-of-the-road.
    
>    get the feeling that your definition of middle of the road is someone
>    who only believes in 98% of your agenda, with 97% and less being
>    considered leftists.
    
    	Someone who believes in 98% of my agenda would be fairly right 
    	of center.  I do not consider myself middle-of-the-road. 

    >   So what's your point then?  Fine.  I really don't know whether
    >	they've chosen not to print it (and for what reason), etc.  
    
    Calling me a liar for pointing it out was rather a bad move on your
    part then, wasn't it?
    
    >   Somehow, though, you act as if you know when "my" newspaper is
    >	censoring things.  
    
    [...hmmmm....should I tell him the Gazette Telegraph is online, or let
    him wallow for another few months...well, he'll figure it out when I
    start doing side-by-side comparisons with what they print from an AP
    newswire story versus what some other paper prints...ok, I'll tell
    him:]  Hey, Joe, your paper is online, so I *can* tell, in some cases,
    when your newspaper censors things...
    
    >   Again, it just goes to show that you've got nothing left in your
    > arsenel.
    
    except truth; useful when errantly called a liar.
    
    DougO
    
    ps - Mark, I do share your hope for meaningful and effective
    legislation.  I just can't realistically expect it, so I'll take my
    glee on the downside; at least the box rightwingers will have it worse
    in their crushing disappointments than I do.

>    Calling me a liar for pointing it out was rather a bad move on your
>    part then, wasn't it?
    
    	No, I called you a liar (and still do) as I outlined in .180
    	and .183.
    
    	And now you've compounded your lies (or is that "positioned
    	the truth") with your statement above.
    
    	Care to try again?
    
>    [...hmmmm....should I tell him the Gazette Telegraph is online, 
    
    	Are you pretending that I don't know this?
    
>    except truth; useful when errantly called a liar.
    
    	No, you just have the carefully "positioned truth".  The most
    	recent few days in this topic stand as testament to that.

    Joe, your first complaint about my 'lie' was this:
    
    >	However, you are untruthfully making up the part about me not 
    >	knowing what might be hidden from me.
    
    Yet you've since admitted that what I said was true: 
    
    > Fine.  I really don't know whether they've chosen not to print it 
    > (and for what reason), etc.
    
    Yes, it is "carefully positioned", ie, what I said is demonstrably true
    and has been demonstrated even to you.  So your use of the liar
    denunciation is baseless, a ploy to cover your embarassment.
    
    >>    [...hmmmm....should I tell him the Gazette Telegraph is online, 
    >
    >	Are you pretending that I don't know this?
    
    I pretend nothing.  I tell you that the GT is online.  What you knew
    and when you knew it I haven't ventured to guess.  Are you claiming you
    knew before you were told?  
    
    DougO

    	.191
    
>    Joe, your first complaint about my 'lie' was this:
>    
>    >	However, you are untruthfully making up the part about me not 
>    >	knowing what might be hidden from me.
    
    	Yup.  I still say you are wrong in this claim.  I can (and most
    	times do) know what is missing from any particular info source.
    
    	What I agreed to, from your .184, is that I can't tell if
    	what's not printed is due to censorship, oversight, lack of
    	print space, editorial policy, etc.  *THAT* is what I agreed
    	to.  It should be pretty clear to you.  I'm surprised you're
    	having such a hard time with this.
    
>    Yet you've since admitted that what I said was true: 
>    
>    > Fine.  I really don't know whether they've chosen not to print it 
>    > (and for what reason), etc.
    
    	See?  *CHOSEN* not to print.  *ETC.* I was merely agreeing with
    	your list from the referenced reply.  (.184)
    
>    Yes, it is "carefully positioned", ie, what I said is demonstrably true
>    and has been demonstrated even to you.  So your use of the liar
>    denunciation is baseless, a ploy to cover your embarassment.
    
    	You've demonstrated no such thing to me, and what you've quoted
    	only serves to support what I'm saying.
    
    	I suggest that you are keeping this silly rathole going because
    	you are embarrassed about getting your electronic lip bloodied
    	over this.  Now you must get your precious "payback".  Grow up.
    
    	Good luck.

    bloody lip?  you're the one calling names.  the rathole is going
    because even though I've substantiated, and you've admitted, that your
    paper censors things, and that you're willing to "pay that price",
    you're too embarassed by what that reveals about you to retract your
    name calling.
    
    And I noticed that you didn't asnwer the question about whether or not
    you knew the GT was online before I told you.  Go ahead - did you?  Or
    are you afraid of what that answer will reveal about you, too?
    
    DougO

    WWGate!!!!!! GDit WWGate!!!!

    boring.

    Q.E.D.

>    bloody lip?  you're the one calling names.  
    
    	What names?  I'm only tossing to you shoes that fit you.  And 
    	they look mighty good on you too!
    
>    the rathole is going
>    because even though I've substantiated, and you've admitted, that your
>    paper censors things, and that you're willing to "pay that price",
>    you're too embarassed by what that reveals about you to retract your
>    name calling.
    
    	Ah, but it's your "truth positioning" with that point such that
    	you make it appear that I've said things that I really have not 
    	said that makes you a liar.  I'm still here to defend my honor
    	from such lies.  Leaving them unanswered might give the appearance
    	that I concede to your version of "truth".
    
>    And I noticed that you didn't asnwer the question about whether or not
>    you knew the GT was online before I told you.  Go ahead - did you?  
    
    	Of course I knew.  And, in fact, for some articles there might
    	even be additional info that didn't make it into print.  I really 
    	didn't expect that this was such an important issue for you that 
    	I answer this, but perhaps you need yet another rathole item to 
    	shield you from further pummeling.

    dougo, you and wordy refuse to discuss them matter only because it
    looks quite grim for your boy. he's going down in '95. you can bury
    your head in the sand if you wish. it won't change a thing. when it
    happens i'll be sure to send you mail to remind you i told you so.

    yeah, yeah, yeah, Joe, you're just defending your 'honor'.
    
    tell us, if you knew the GT was online, why'd you 'go to the library'
    yesterday for that 'scandinavian' euthanasia article instead of just 
    looking for the article online?
    
    DougO

    	More ratholes?
    
    	Knowing it's online and accessing it from here are two
    	different things.

    What's boring is this pointless rathole. WWgate, on the other hand...

    
    gene and Doc...
    
     You guys are so "gullible"....
    
    Why!!... If you (generic) talk about everything else but WWG, then
    it'll go away!!! Right??? Honest!! And I'll back it up with every
    ostrich feather on my butt!!!!

    Re: .151 
    
    Who is Tony Snow?

    
    A "columnist" who worked for George Herbert Walker Bush.
    
    								-mr. bill

    From the AP over the weekend:
    
    White House Bungled Suicide Probe
    	WASHINGTON-Presidential aides ignored an explicit request by police
    investigators to seal Vincent Foster's office in the crucial hours
    after the White House lawyer committed suicide, a draft Senate report
    concludes.
    	US Park Police investigators learned only the next day that their
    advice was not followed--and discovered that even after the door was
    locked, "anyone who wanted to" could enter if they signed a log.
    	The failure to secure the office, documented in the draft Senate
    Banking Committee report obtained by the Associated Press, has become
    crucial to Whitewater investigations.
    	The access to the office permitted the removal of Whitewater files
    from Foster's office to a locked closet in the White House
    residence--taken there by Margaret Williams, Hillary Rodham Clinton's
    chief of staff.
    	Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, chairman-designate of the Senate Banking
    Committee, has said the document removal will be a crucial focus of the
    next hearings on Whitewater--the name of the Arkansas land investment
    once owned by President and Mrs. Clinton.
    	The Senate hearings were to start by February, but D'Amato
    announced Dec. 13 that he would push them back.  He did so after
    meeting with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, saying he would not
    interfere with Starr's criminal probe.
    	The draft report is the Democratic-written account of the banking
    committee's findings on Foster's death after an investigation and a
    hearing last July.
    	The Democrats also have written a report that highlights the
    conflicting testimony of Clinton administration officials who described
    their actions after learning that regulators wanted a criminal probe of
    Whitewater.
    	Republicans are preparing "additional views" that are expected to
    be highly critical of Treasury Dept officials, who passed on
    information about the regulators' probe to the White House.  The entire
    Senate report is due out Jan. 3.
    	The body of Foster, who was deputy White House counsel and a former
    law partner of Mrs. Clinton, was found between 5:30 and 5:45 PM July
    20, 1993, on federal parkland in Virginia.  The banking committee
    concurred with findings of law enforcement officials and former special
    counsel Roberk Fiske that Foster killed himself.
    	The report said that Park Police investigator Charyl Braun, shortly
    after the body had been identified, asked White House aide David
    Wadkins "to have Mr. Foster's office secured and that Mr. Wadkins
    agreed to do so."
    	In her deposition to the committee, "Investigator Braun testified
    that she later learned the office had not been secured that night," the
    report said.
    	The morning after the suicide, as Park Police officials met with
    White House aides, the officers learned that the office still had not
    been closed off.
    	The report said that Capt. Charles Hume "believed that Mr. (White
    House Counsel Bernard) Nusebaum sealed off the room about 10 AM July
    21, 1993."
    	But this apparently was not correct, according to what Maj. Robert
    Hines learned that morning as Park Police briefed White House officials
    on the investigation. 
    	"Mr. Nussbaum's told him that Mr. Foster's office would be posted
    with a security guard," the report said.  "Maj. Hined assumed that the
    office had already been secured."
    	Despite Nussbaum's comments about posting a guard, Capt. Hume made
    another discovery, according to the report.
    	He "saw that the door to Mr. Foster's office was locked, but
    testified he was told by the agent guarding Mr. Foster's office that
    anyone who wanted to go into the office as long as they signed a log,"
    the report said.
    	The next day, July 22, Capt. Hume was concerned about the presence
    of 2 White House attorneys--Clifford Sloan and Steve Neuwirth aides
    about their last contacts with Foster.
    	"Capt. Hume was troubled by the presence of Mr. Neuwirth, since he
    had seen Mr. Foster on the 20th before his death and Capt. Hume would
    normally interview witnesses seperately," the report said.
    	As anoterh Park Police investigator explained to the committee,
    seperation of witnesses is crucial to make sure that one person's
    account does not influence the recollection of another.
    	Hume also "believed it was unusual for attorneys to be present
    during these types of office interviews," the report added.
    
    ME

    I don't understand this.  Why did they have to 'request' the sealing of
    the office???  When the police get to a crime scene, they put up that
    yellow plastic tape and post a guard.  Why was this different?
    
    Bob

    because this was the White House, the resident of a Democrat President
    in Washington, DC.

This is just another Right Wing attack on the benevolant socialist dead weight
in the White House so - just ignore it.






Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!world!aas
From: [email protected] (art a swanson)
Subject: MENA NEWS MEANS TROUBLE FOR SLICK
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 20:50:29 GMT
Lines: 537

Okay, kiddies...here's the latest bombshell from...         
                                                            
The Washington Times                                        
Tuesday, January 3, 1995                                    
                                                            
A TRAIL OF PERSISTENT RUMORS LEADS TO MENA - Scandal could  
dwarf Whitewater                                            
by Hugh Aynesworth                                          
                                                            
Mena, Ark.--It's a long story with everything: tales of     
drug smuggling, bags of cash dropping from the sky, murder  
by ambush, revenge in the dead of night, and laced with     
the names of famous spies and godfathers, pilots            
and presidents.                                             
    If only half the particulars are true--and nobody is    
sure of the discount rate on the stories--it could be a     
scandal to dwarf anything seen before in U.S. politics.     
    but despite a long run as a staple of congressional     
rhetoric, radio talk shows and investigations by most major 
news organizations, the accurate particulars remain         
elusive.  Nevertheless, it's a story that won't go away,    
and its locale--the rugged hills deep in the Ouachita       
National Forest in the remote mountain counties of what has 
become America's most interesting state--and its            
connection, if any, to the Whitewater scandals lend the     
Mena story the elements and the aura of a bomb ticking      
beneath the feed of the famous and the powerful.            
    Litigation, some of it already in the works, may force  
the answers to some questions.  One prominent Arkansas      
politician, Bill Alexander, who served 12 terms in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, where he was the chief deputy     
Democratic whip, is working with lawyers for one plaintiff  
who accuses Bill Clinton's chief of security with           
manipulating evidence.                                      
    Mr. Alexander's interest in Mena (which is across the   
state from his old congressional district) is not new.  He  
began hearing about Mena as early as 1988, and as a         
congressman he asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 
investigate how the investigation of foreign drug           
trafficking bears on the formulation of U.S. policy.        
    In a confidential report from the House Appropriations  
committee, dated Feb. 22, 1989, the first paragraph of a    
six-page, single-spaced report says: "The Reagan            
administration repeatedly blocked the efforts by the GAO    
to obtain information concerning this investigation."       
    In 1991,  Mr. Alexander obtained a $25,000 grant from   
the federal government to be used by the Arkansas State     
Police to reopen the investigation.  Mr. Alexander got a    
commitment from the Arkansas attorney general Winston       
Bryant to help.  But before the investigation got under     
way, Mr. Alexander was upset in the Democratic primary in   
1992--the investigation was not an issue in the campaign--  
and Bill Clinton was running for president.  Few            
politicians at home wanted to stir up anything to hurt the  
candidacy of their very own good ol' boy.                   
    "There was enough evidence to begin cracking it open,"  
says Mr. Alexander, who four years ago pushed hard for      
hearings on Mena by House subcommittees on Commerce,        
Justice, State and Judiciary, "and suddenly nobody wanted   
to touch it.  I want to know why.                           
    "The basic problem here is that I (had) the highest     
possible clearance that the government can provide for      
secrecy.  I (was) cleared for secrets that the president    
gets--and no one else--but I (was) denied access to         
information in a criminal investigation in my state."       
    The Mena story is fraught with conjecture, much of it   
spun by its central figure, a swashbuckling pilot named     
Barry Seal, now dead.  There is no proof that the           
clandestine events are linked to Whitewater, but many of    
the figures linked to Mena are figures who have been        
closely tied to Bill Clinton and the failure of Madison     
MORE NEXT NOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
cont.                                                       
Guaranty Savings & Loan Association of Little Rock in 1989, 
with its ties to Whitewater Development Corp., the          
real-estate partnership of Madison owner James B. McDougal, 
Mr. Clinton and their wives.                                
    Mr. Clinton has disclaimed any participation in or      
knowledge of any such activity at Mena, the most recent     
denial in answer to a question at his Oct. 7 news           
conference.                                                 
    Events at Mena "were primarily a matter for federal     
jurisdiction" he said.  "The state really had next to       
nothing to do with it.  The local prosecutor did conduct    
an investigation based on what was in the jurisdiction of   
state law.  The rest of it was under the jurisdiction of    
the United States attorneys who were appointed successively 
by previous administrations.  We had nothing--zero--to do   
with it."                                                   
    The denial was greeted with some skepticism in          
Arkansas, where Mr. Clinton's determination to know about   
everything going on while he was governor is still remarked 
on.  Others linked by speculation and circumstance include  
Webster L. Hubbell, a close Clinton friend and confidant    
who pleaded guilty to bilking Little Rock's Rose Law Firm,  
where he was a partner with Hillary Rodham Clinton, and its 
clients of $390,000; Dan R. Lasater, a Little Rock          
investment banker and longtime contributor to Mr. Clinton's 
campaigns, who went to federal prison for distributing      
cocaine; and figures in the administrations of President    
Reagan and Bush, through their efforts to supply arms to    
the Nicaraguan Contras.                                     
    The nub of the story is this:  That Mena's airport was  
the base for a large aviation operation, with planes flying 
arms to the Contras in Nicaragua and returning from Central 
America with drugs, which were then distributed throughout  
the United States.  Some of the flights were illegal;  all  
of them were clandestine.                                   
    Though the Mena story has been a staple of gossip and   
intrigue for years, it was given new life last year with    
the publication of a book called "Compromised:  Clinton,    
Bush and the CIA," by Terry Reed, a former Air Force        
intelligence officer.  In it, he asserts that Mr. Clinton   
was aware of the scheme to use the planes that took arms    
to the Contras to return with drugs, and that through Dan   
Lasater he received 10 percent of the hundreds of millions  
of dollars in drug profit, which Mr. Lasater laundered.     
    Mr. Clinton emphatically denies any such activity, and  
Mr. Reed has presented no proof.  Nevertheless, the Reed    
allegations have taken on a life of their own.              
                                                            
    TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN                                  
                                                            
    Mr. Reed, who says he was a CIA operative during the    
1980s, says the 10 percent of the drug profits were dropped 
in the dead of night onto a small ranch outside of Little   
Rock in 1984 and 1985--satchels of $100 bills--and          
laundered by Dan Lasater either through banks or the        
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, a state development 
agency that Mr. Clinton, as governor, organized in 1985.    
Mr. Reed asserts that Mr. Clinton acquiesced in the         
planning and operation of the scheme and compelled state    
agencies to help hide evidence.                             
    In this scenario, George Bush, the late William Casey,  
Oliver North, two Republican attorneys general, a cadre of  
CIA "enforcers" and several Mafia figures were involved in  
one way or another, either in the illegal operations or by  
assisting, for reasons of national security, in the         
cover-up of the scheme.                                     
    Mena figures have told investigators they trained       
Panamanian pilots at the airport and worked with pilots     
employed by the Palestine Liberation Organization.  Mr.     
Reed says he taught two groups of Nicaraguan pilots how     

cont.                                                       
to maneuver the weapons drops to Nicaraguan Contras         
fighting the Marxist Sandinista government.                 
    One of the lumbering C-123K transport planes, of        
the model that was the workhorse of the Vietnam war, was    
often seen at Mena in 1984 and 1985, and identified later   
as the very plane flown by Eugene Hasenfus when he was      
shot down in the Nicaraguan mountains in 1986 delivering    
U.S. arms shipments to the Contras.                         
    John Gotti, the New York Mafia boss, is said to have    
established a base in this remote area as a safe transit    
point for shipments of drugs.  The files of investigators   
are filled with Swiss bank account numbers and purported    
details of how low-level CIA functionaries carried millions 
of dollars to deposit to banks in Switzerland.              
    Some of these assertions were made by figures on both   
the right and left who have been discredited.  The          
descriptions of the Mafia connection came from an Oregon    
man who was once charged by federal authorities with        
making up a story about witnessing an October 1980 meeting  
involving Reagan aides Donald Gregg and Mr. Casey, who he   
said had tried to persuade Iranian officials to delay the   
release of the Tehran hostages until Mr. Reagan was         
inaugurated in 1981.  the man was acquitted, but few        
believed his story.                                         
                                                            
    SMOKING GUN                                             
                                                            
    But it's Bill Clinton, who held Arkansas in tight       
thrall for his 12 years as governor, who is the subject     
of most of the speculation.  What did he know, when did he  
know it--and what did he do about it?  Everyone with a      
connection to Mr. Clinton and to Mena attracts close        
scrutiny, too.  Webb Hubbell's fall from power has thrust   
him and the firm into the spotlight again.  In his book,    
Mr. Reed accuses Mr. Hubbell, the former U.S. associate     
attorney general who resigned in March, and the Rose Law    
Firm of manipulating large sums of money from Mena.         
    "When the book was first done, three large publishers   
refused to publish it unless we took out references to Mr.  
Hubbell," Mr. Reed said in a recent interview.  "We felt    
we couldn't do that."                                       
    Perhaps because the embarrassment over Mena would be    
bipartisan embarrassment, perhaps because they don't want   
to distract attention from a bold agenda, Republican        
enthusiasm for looking into the Mena story seems to have    
diminished considerably since Nov. 8.  But some sort of     
congressional inquiry may be inevitable.                    
    "I wouldn't expect Mena to get any congressional        
attention until the Whitewater probes have finished," says  
one veteran House staffer.  "But from what we already know, 
I'd bet we'll be able to follow the bouncing ball once      
everything starts rolling."                                 
    Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, one of those who   
have taken the House floor to argue for an investigation    
of Mena, is one of the Republicans who have cooled their    
rhetoric since the November elections.                      
    "There obviously were some questionable activities      
going on at both the Mena airport and the Whitewater land   
development project," Mr. Burton told The Washington Times. 
"Presently there are investigations into both of these      
matters.  It would be premature to comment before the       
investigations are completed."                              
    One who probably knows the case far better than anyone  
else, Bill Duncan, a former IRS investigator who tried for  
years to get an appropriate federal agency to look into     
Mena, speculates that nobody will be interested in looking  
closely now.  "Who's going to investigate it?" he asks.     
    "For there to be an effective, thorough, productive     
investigation of what went terribly wrong in Mena," he      
says, "partisan politicians will have to be laid aside,     
MORE NEXT NOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
                                                            
    SEAL AND THE SETUP                                      
                                                            
    Tales about Mena began in the early 1980s when Adler    
Barriman "Barry" Seal--who once flew the Boeing 747         
passenger jetliner for Trans World Airlines--bought a       
hangar at the Rich Intermountain Regional Airport north     
of Mena and turned it into a center for modification of     
high-performance airplanes.                                 
    Nearly everything about the Mena story revolves around  
Mr. Seal, a heavyset drug-smuggling pilot with a penchant   
for the spectacular--a man whose career often put him in    
close proximity with famous people.  Some were honest and   
legitimate.  Some were not.                                 
    He was born in Baton Rouge, La., where the politics of  
the bizarre is not unknown, and he nourished the perception 
that he was a special kind of crook--not exactly a Robin    
Hood, because he didn't often give to the poor, but a red-  
blooded American who could beat the Columbian bad guys      
(and to some extent, the American politicians) at their     
own game.                                                   
    He weaved heroic tales of how he stared down drug lords 
in their own dens, how he deftly maneuvered planes below    
radar to deliver expensive illicit cargo to primitive       
jungle airstrips, how he played one federal agent against   
another as they scrambled to catch him.                     
    One former Seal confidant, who served time in prison    
for other activities, told a Houston FBI agent several      
years ago that Mr. Seal was the ultimate intelligence       
gatherer and that alone made him seem "almost magical" to   
those who worked with him.                                  
    "He had so many connections to federal agencies that    
he usually knew what was going down days before it          
happened," the one-time pal said.  "You think he didn't     
play on that kind of information?"                          
    Even though all but his most credulous friends knew     
that many of his heroic tales were made up, there always    
seemed to be enough truth to blur final evaluation.  That   
aura, that mystical bearing, is one reason why there are    
so many conflicting opinions about Mr. Seal and what went   
on at Mena.                                                 
    Some people think he was merely a journeyman drug       
smuggler who talked a good game, who got caught and paid a  
debt by helping federal agents grab others.  To handle      
this assignment Mr. Seal had to have fast airplanes in top  
working order.  Thus the connection at Mena.                
    Others think Mr. Seal not only worked for the Drug      
Enforcement Administration (the agency concedes that much)  
and the CIA (which doesn't concede anything), but hustled   
out on his own.                                             
    When he first arrived in Mena, Mr. Seal was no more     
noticeable than any of the others who congregated for       
coffee at the Lime Tree Inn on Mena's main street.  He told 
good stories, but none had anything to do with drug         
smuggling.  That was in 1981, four years after he started   
making his drug runs.                                       
    He told friends later that federal agents had been      
getting too close to his Louisiana operations.  He needed   
a more remote, quieter place.                               
    Mena (population 3,154) was perfect:  One of the most   
remote locations in North America, yet relatively close to  
Central America.  The terrain has not changed much since    
the land was first settled more than a century ago by       
solid, hard-working men and women of Anglo-Saxon stock who  
mind their own business and expect others to do the same.   
It's just down the road from settlements with plain,        
straightforward names: Acorn, Umpire, Ink, Board Camp and   
Pine Ridge--the latter the home of the once-famous Jot 'Em  
MORE NEXT NOTE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   

cont.                                                       
Down Store, where the two fictional country storekeepers    
Lum 'n Abner held forth every Sunday night in the '30s and  
'40s as one of the top-rated network radio comedy shows     
(visitors still seek out the Jot 'Em Down Store.)           
    He struck up a partnership with Mena businessman Fred   
Hampton and quickly staffed the new hangar-headquarters     
with trusted mechanics and pilots he had worked with in     
earlier operations.  Within months he established an outfit 
rivaled by few outside the military.                        
    Working mostly at night, when prying eyes from the      
other airport operations could not see what they were       
doing, Mr. Seal's team rebuilt airplanes, adding state-of-  
the-art navigational equipment, extra fuel tanks and door   
latches and hatches to make a smuggler's work easier.       
    Later, after he was arrested in 1984 on                 
cocaine-distribution charges--and became a valuable "asset" 
in the U.S. government sting operations that snared several 
international drug merchants--he would claim that over a    
span of more than seven years he made more than 100 trips   
to South America and brought back more than $5 billion      
worth of cocaine.                                           
    Much of what has become of "the Mena story" occurred in 
the year or so before Mr. Seal was arrested by DEA agents   
and the two years during which he was operating stings for  
both the DEA and CIA.                                       
    During that time, he made what his DEA case agent,      
Robert Joura, called "the most important case DEA ever      
worked."  At risk of brutal death, he infiltrated the       
Colombian cocaine cartel and then testified against several 
important narcotics kingpins.                               
    Mr. Seal also collected the evidence to prove           
Sandinista complicity in Nicaraguan drug running, hiding    
cameras aboard his cargo plane to document the loading of   
$60 million worth of cocaine (1,452 pounds) by Sandinista   
official Federico Vaughan.                                  
    But a few months later, in February 1986, Mr. Seal was  
slain in a Baton Rouge halfway house at the hands of hired  
gunmen dispatched by the Colombian drug cartel.             
                                                            
    MYTHS AND THEORIES                                      
                                                            
    There's little doubt that Mr. Seal made many millions   
flying the contraband not only into the United States, but  
also to other countries.  He is thought to have turned a    
fortune running guns to Nicaragua--and to Panama.           
    Nobody has yet pinpointed where the money went.  In a   
dispatch by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the London Sunday      
Telegraph reported recently that more than $1.6 billion in  
Seal "earnings" is known to be in an interest-bearing bank  
account in the Cayman Islands.                              
    One federal agent who worked the Louisiana cases        
against Mr. Seal says that figure "shows just how           
ridiculous such 'facts' have become" in the growing Seal    
legend.                                                     
    Mr. Seal testified before Congress that he had made at  
least $50 million in his trafficking.  The IRS, needing     
no further evidence, dunned him for the taxes on that sum.  
    Rumors persist that diaries kept by Mr. Seal, along     
with personal financial papers, have been located and may   
become public.  Mr. Duncan, the former IRS investigator,    
says he has heard this but does not know who controls the   
material.  He had been told the Seal documents "are         
significant and corroborate" some of the current theories.  
    In a rare interview, Dan Lasater, the Little Rock       
investment banker, one-time cocaine distributor and         
sometime Clinton fund-raiser, called accusations about him  
"unfounded" and says his relationship with Mr. Clinton had  
been greatly exaggerated.                                   
    "I haven't spoken to Bill Clinton since 1985," he says. 
He says he has been in the presence of Mr. Clinton only     
eight times in his life.                                    
    That worries Mr. Duncan, who with Russell Welch, an     
Arkansas State Police investigator, did the early spadework 
and built a federal money-laundering case, which he and     
others say was sidetracked by higher-ups in Washington.     
    "My No. 1 concern is that people that could investigate 
this are going to be so afraid of being called conspiracy   
theorists and kooks themselves that they're not going to    
tackle it because of all that," he says.                    
    Earlier this year, Terry Reed and his theories became   
the hit of talk radio around the country.  Pat Robertson's  
television show, "The 700 Club", praised it lavishly.  His  
book is not a partisan attack on Mr. Clinton, though it     
describes him [especially negatively.]                      
    In one account, Mr. Reed and his co-author, John        
Cummings, write that Mr. Clinton urged Mr. Reed to accept   
a CIA assignment in an even bigger covert enterprise in     
Mexico, as the governor smoked a marijuana cigarette in     
a minivan parked outside a Little Rock restaurant.          
    He says Mr. Clinton, "inhaling with expertise," told    
him that Oliver North had been "leaning" on him to get a    
definite commitment from him.  He describes Mr. North,      
known to Mr. Reed at the time as "John Cathay", as the      
nominal leader of a secret Reagan administration scheme     
based in Mena to help arm and finance the Contra efforts.   
    Another account in his book has Mr. Clinton getting a   
dressing down from a CIA official dispatched by Bill Casey, 
known as "Frank Johnson", who blamed Mr. Clinton for        
skimming too much money from the guns-drugs training scam.  
    "You're supposed to get 10 percent of the take, not 10  
percent of the gross," snapped the CIA man to the chagrined 
governor as several participants watched in amazement as    
they sat in a munitions bunker at Little Rock Air Force     
Base.                                                       
    Mr. Reed said he later learned that "Frank Johnson"     
was, in fact, William P. Barr, then a top Justice           
Department official and later attorney general.             
    "It's ludicrous," Mr. Barr said recently by telephone   
from Connecticut.  "I've never met Mr. Clinton, never met   
Bill Casey, never used an alias and have never been to      
Arkansas.  And it wasn't until a few months ago that I ever 
met Ollie North."                                           
    He said he was a lobbyist for the CIA in 1987 but has   
done no work for the agency since.                          
    Most others named as participants also deny Mr. Reed's  
story.                                                      
    Mr. North did not return telephone calls, but,          
answering a question during his unsuccessful campaign for   
the U.S. Senate in Virginia, said he had never met or       
spoken with Mr. Reed.                                       
    Mr. Reed writes at length about a man named Joe Evans,  
a Seal mechanic-partner who he says helped with training    
the first of two secret classes of Contra pilots at Nella,  
a tiny landing strip just north of Mena.  He writes that    
Mr. Reed helped organize the training and was the lead      
instructor.  He and Mr. Evans worked closely, he said.      
    When the two met on camera during a CNN interview of    
Mr. Reed a few weeks ago, Mr. Evans said, "I've never seen  
this man before--until he walked through that door."        
                                                            
    FACT OR FANTASY                                         
                                                            
    One ranking congressional aide told The Washington      
Times in an interview that while Mr. Reed's charges         
occasionally seemed absurd, "he's not the only one we       
have making such accusations."                              
    "We can no more afford to rule out his allegations      
without investigating them than we can to accept everything 
he says as gospel."                                         
    THE PROBE                                               
    Though Mr. Reed's accusations are the most colorfully   
detailed, it is the story of two investigators, Messrs.     
Duncan and Welch that may in the end accomplish an all-out  
investigation.  Nobody has questioned their motives or      
integrity.                                                  
    Mr. Duncan first received a tip that money was being    
laundered here in April 1983.  Mr. Welch was already        
working his own sources, collecting evidence on this and    
chasing down other reports of unusual happenings--like      
sporadic gunfire and unusual air traffic over the mountains 
near Mena.  Mr. Duncan and Mr. Welch met in July 1983 and   
began sharing information.                                  
    The evidence seemed persuasive:  Fred Hampton and those 
who worked for the Seal-Hampton company regularly traded    
cash for cashier's checks at banks in Mena, Russellville,   
Boonsville and other small towns in western Arkansas.       
    "Barry just didn't like bank accounts," Mr. Hampton     
told The Times recently.                                    
    Records of more than $250,000 in such transactions were 
subpoenaed.  Then the two probers gathered signed           
affidavits from several key "traders".  The investigators   
knew they didn't have a smoking gun, though a couple of     
witnesses said they saw heavy weapons and cocaine inside    
the Seal cargo planes.                                      
    The key, the investigators concluded, was to get        
indictments against two or three of the Seal employees,     
then persuade them to testify against others.               
    And though they had proof that $250,000 had been washed 
in the cash-for-cashier's checks routine, they figured      
there was a lot more money out there somewhere.             
    Mr. Duncan lobbied the U.S. attorney's office in both   
Fort Smith and Little Rock to authorize him to scrutinize   
rumored conduits through banks in Little Rock and           
elsewhere.  The federal prosecutors declined.               
                                                            
    THE STONE WALL                                          
                                                            
    The first such indication of what might have happened   
had come in February 1983 when Mr. Duncan was asked to      
testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee on crime.     
Before he left for Washington, his partner telephoned him   
to say that a former Mena deputy sheriff might have come    
up with the reason why the federal prosecutor, Mr.          
Fitzhugh, handled the Fort Smith grand jury session the way 
he did.                                                     
    "Barry Seal claimed he paid a $500,000 bribe to Edwin   
Meese (then U.S. attorney general) to stonewall the         
investigation," Mr. Welch told Mr. Duncan.                  
    Mr. Duncan says he did not necessarily believe the      
Seal claim, but he immediately told IRS lawyer Mary Ann     
Cortin in the Disclosure Division that if he was asked, he  
would admit to the congressional questioners he had heard   
such a claim.                                               
    Mr. Duncan says his IRS supervisors instructed him to   
dodge the question and told him not to comment on his       
"problems" with the U.S. attorney.                          
    "It was not a matter of volunteering information," Mr.  
Duncan wrote in a June 20, 1989 affidavit to the IRS, "it   
was a matter of truthfully and completely answering to the  
best of my ability questions from the subcommittee."        
    He said that if he were to be asked about the           
interagency "problems", he would just say, "I would have    
done it differently."                                       
    And if asked about the call from Mr. Welch, Mr. Duncan  
was told to reply, "I have no information."                 
    Mr. Duncan said he thought such replies would put him   
at risk of perjury.                                         
    The IRS lawyers said the agency "could not have an      
allegation about a bribe to the attorney general attributed 
to an IRS agent."                                           
    Finally, when Mr. Duncan insisted that he would tell    
the truth, the IRS lawyers agreed that he could tell the    
committee that he had no other information, beyond Mr.      
Welch's phone call.                                         
    Finally, a federal grand jury was sworn to hear the     
Mena cases in Fort Smith.  The investigators thought this   
was a hopeful first step:  it is not in the nature of a     
grand jury to decline to indict when the prosecutor demands 
it.  Nevertheless, the grand jury declined.                 
    "We found out later that the grand jury heard only      
three witnesses and was not shown most of the evidence      
we had collected," Mr. Duncan says.                         
    J. Michael Fitzhugh, who had been named U.S. attorney   
in Forth Smith in the midst of the investigation, said he   
detected no unusual aspects to the case.  The grand jury    
"just didn't feel they had enough to charge anyone," he     
says.                                                       
    However, one grand juror was so angered that she broke  
the rule that grand jurors never discuss their secret       
proceedings.  The case had been blatantly mishandled, she   
later told a congressional investigator, and several grand  
jurors thought "there was some type of government           
intervention," according to a transcript obtained by the    
Wall Street Journal.  "Something is being covered up."      
    With hindsight, Mr. Duncan thinks he should not have    
been surprised.  "The Mena investigations were never meant  
to see the light of day.  Investigations were interfered    
with and the justice system was subverted."  He was never   
given the opportunity to explain his case in detail to the  
jury.                                                       
    Mr. Welch has since resigned from the state police and  
now works for the Polk County Sheriff's Office in Mena.     
Mr. Duncan left the IRS after an internal disagreement and  
now works on Medicaid fraud for the state Attorney          
General's Office in Little Rock.  Both men say they have    
been warned that further comment will not help their        
career advancement.                                         
                                                            
END OF SAGA                                                 

>    	The access to the office permitted the removal of Whitewater files
>    from Foster's office to a locked closet in the White House
>    residence--taken there by Margaret Williams, Hillary Rodham Clinton's
>    chief of staff.
    	
	If this is true, couldn't it be construed as an admission of guilt 
since it appears that the WW files were taken after Vince's death? I mean they 
can't really say the files were a matter of national security could they?


Dave

>         <<< Note 26.209 by WMOIS::FAFEL "Life is short. Play Dead." >>>
>
>
>>    	The access to the office permitted the removal of Whitewater files
>>    from Foster's office to a locked closet in the White House
>>    residence--taken there by Margaret Williams, Hillary Rodham Clinton's
>>    chief of staff.
>    	
>	If this is true, couldn't it be construed as an admission of guilt 
>since it appears that the WW files were taken after Vince's death? I mean they 
>can't really say the files were a matter of national security could they?
>
>
>Dave


Dave,

The problem as I see it is that there was a simple request by a police
officer and no court order or any official order not to do what they did.
Lawyers are aware that there's not much they can do about it except to
prove they knew that what they were doing was removal of evidence for
another crime.  That, in and of itself, is not a crime.  What they removed
might have been able to implicate them in some other stuff but if that's
what they were doing (hiding evidence of another crime) than they just
increased their odds of getting away with it.  I mean - if what's being
said about WhiteWater and the associated crimes, this is peanuts.  If
what they say about Whitewater is true than this won't even be brough
up in the trial!

Bruce

    Good point, Bruce.  When the secret Swiss Bank accounts, the blind
    ownership of vast expanses of real estate, and the extent of drug
    trafficing are revealed and proven, Hillary's $100,000 gamble in the
    MART will look like trick or treat stuff!

                   <<< Note 26.211 by USAT02::WARRENFELTZR >>>

>    Good point, Bruce.  When the secret Swiss Bank accounts, the blind
>    ownership of vast expanses of real estate, and the extent of drug
>    trafficing are revealed and proven, Hillary's $100,000 gamble in the
>    MART will look like trick or treat stuff!

Then there's BIG ifs (or whens)...

    Find out who Larry Nichols is... he's talking.
    Leach supposedly has enough stuff to de-job Mr.C but he's afraid
    doing so will wreck the economy (actually he and Armey, et al are
    afraid of what he'll do to the repubs).
    
    Madike

    	The story of this whole sordid affair is not over by a long shot!
    Detractors of Newt Gingrich may wish to shift the smell of scandal
    in Newt's direction, but to say that "the investigation of Whitewater is
    over" and/or "nothing was found" is just as ridiculous today as that
    statement was last year at this time.
    
    	People close to Bill Clinton have been in court and are going to
    do jail time concerning this matter. The question unanswered is "How
    many more?" and "Will Bill or Hillary be among them?"        
    
    	Do not bring ridicule on yourself by declaring otherwise.

    <- nobody in here has declared otherwise, however you seem to be
       alluding to a continued body count or "nothing was found" is,
       in itself, inappropriate and innaccurate. 
    
       Until the investigation turns up evidence that BC/HC undeniably
       implicates wrong doing it's only your opinion. If that evidence
       does, indeed, show up (my guess is something would've surfaced
       by now) then I'll join in the attack, until then I'll stay
       out of all this rank speculation...
    
       Chip
       

    Re: .215   What are you trying to say?

    I think Whitewater is a bore.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Whitewater Indictment Hits Banker / He is accused
    of hiding Clinton campaign cash 
    
    
    Richard Keil 
    Washington 
    
    A grand jury investigating the Whitewater affair charged the former
    president of an Arkansas bank yesterday with concealing large cash
    withdrawals by Bill Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial campaign. 
    
    Independent counsel Kenneth Starr's office announced the five felony
    charges against Neal T. Ainley, former  president of Perry County Bank.
    The indictment was handed up by the grand jury in Little Rock. 
    
    The indictment alleges that Ainley was part of a conspiracy that
    involved ``concealing from the IRS and others the withdrawal of large
    amounts of United States currency by the 1990 Clinton campaign.'' 
    
    Specifically, it states that Ainley failed to report to the government
    withdrawals of $30,000 by the campaign on May 25 and $22,500 on
    November 2 of that year. 
    
    FEDERAL REPORTING RULES
    
    Federal law requires that all cash transactions totaling more than
    $10,000 be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and federal bank
    regulators. 
    
    The indictment makes no direct accusations against the campaign, whose
    treasurer in 1990 was Bruce Lindsey, now a top White House aide. It
    also does not say why Ainley might have sought to conceal the
    transactions. 
    
    The indictment charges that the conspiracy involved ``others known and
    unknown'' to the grand jury, but it does not name them. 
    
    It also cites ``various overt acts'' involved in the ``furtherance of
    the conspiracy'' -- among them that each cash withdrawal was delivered
    by Ainley ``to a representative of the 1990 Clinton campaign.'' 
    
    Recently, Whitewater investigators interviewed black ministers and
    other community advocates in Arkansas about cash they received from the
    campaign in connection with a get-out-the-vote effort. 
    
    Lindsey has denied wrongdoing and has said previously that the cash was
    used for the campaign's turnout efforts in Arkansas. He did not
    immediately return a phone call to his office seeking comment. 
    
    In all, the bank lent $180,000 to Clinton's 1990 campaign. 
    
    The indictment alleges that Ainley intercepted from the bank's mail bin
    a report that would have notified the IRS about the November 2 cash
    transaction. Two months later, he then falsely told the Federal Deposit
    Insurance Corp. that each transaction in excess of $10,000 had been
    reported, it alleges. 
    
    Ainley was president of Perry County Bank from June 1989 through March
    1994.  A man who answered his home telephone yesterday hung up on a
    reporter seeking comment. 
    
    Ainley is the fifth person to face charges in the broad investigation
    of Arkansas business dealings that has come to be known by the name of
    President and Mrs. Clinton's Whitewater real estate venture. 
    
    The other four have pleaded guilty to charges under agreements with
    Whitewater prosecutors. 
    
    Among them was Webster Hubbell, the former No. 3 Justice Department
    official and friend of the Clintons who pleaded guilty late last year
    to bilking his former law firm and clients, including the federal
    government, out of money. 
    
    Hubbell has agreed to cooperate with the probe. 
    
    In addition to the Clintons' personal financial dealings, Whitewater
    prosecutors have been investigating how Clinton financed his political
    career, including the 1990 gubernatorial campaign.
    
    INVESTIGATION OF TIES
    
    Published reports have said investigators were focusing on the
    relationship between that campaign and the small Perry County Bank,
    which was run by Herby Branscum Jr., a longtime political associate of
    Clinton's. 
    
    Branscum, a former chairman of the state Democratic Party and chairman
    of the bank, was appointed to the Arkansas Highway Commission by
    Clinton in 1991. 
    
    ``I don't know anything about (the indictment),'' Branscum said
    yesterday in Little Rock. ``The bank has an attorney. I'll have to get
    a hold of him.'' 
    
    Mark Satterfield, a spokesman for the bank, said he would not comment
    on the case. 
    
    Published 3/1/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    Boring, but indicative of the rampant sleaze that has so dogged this
    administration. And rightfully so. Seems to be yet another recurrence
    of a common theme; the politically powerful get that way by underhanded
    methods. The biggest difference between this administration and
    previous ones (aside from the depths to which they sank) is the fact
    that this administration promised moral and ethical superiority. In the
    wake of those assertions, the facts seem especially troubling.

    ZZ    I think Whitewater is a bore.
      
    DougO:
    
    I thought Watergate was a bore
    
    
    I thought the Clarence Thomas Hearings were a bore.
    
    
    I thought Iran Contra was a bore
    
    
    But you started it!!
    
    -Jack  
    

    don't forget: the Bork "hearings" were also a bore.
    
    

Newgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Subject: 8 Banks Subpeoned by Starr 


-Bank of Cherry Valley, formerly owned by Maurice Smith, a former Clinton 
	political ally.  Lent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton for 
	different political needs through the 80's.

-Bank of Kingston, later known as Madison Bank and Trust purchased by the 
	McDougals.  Hillary Rodham Clinton once took a WW related loan from 
	the Bank of Kingston.

-Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan in Little Rock, AK.  Owned by the 
	McDougals.  Hosted a controversial 1985 Clinton fundraiser. Lent
	money to Guy Tuckers' entities.  Kept WW's chronically overdrawn 
	checking account.

-Capital Management Services Inc.  Lent money to Susan McDougal and to 
	companies controlled by Guy Tucker.  Formerly owned by Judge David
	Hale, now cooperating with Starr.

-Citizens Bank and Trust in Flippin, AK.  Lent money for the Clinton's 
	and the McDougal's original purchase of WW Property.


-Perry County Bank in Perryville, AK. Bank at which Ainley was 
	president.  Herbie Branscum, Jr.is a co-owner.  Bank loaned Clinton 
	$180,000 for his 1990 Gubernatorial Campaign

-Union National Bank of Little Rock.  Provided the downpayment for the 
	Clinton's and McDougals purchase of the WW Property.

-Security Bank of Paragould.  Formerly owned by Marlin Jackson, Clinton's 
	Banking Commissioner.  In the 1980's it held a WW Development
 	Corp. Loan.

-- 

    
    the last couple of days i've been rummaging through about 4 months
    worth of unread "conspiracy nation" issues, finding most of the
    content to be nonsense.  however, the list of people associated with
    the current administration who are no longer with us is curious, to
    say the least.    
    
    bill

    From today's Washington Times
    
    Probe of Contacts may be compromised
    
    An ethics investigation into the White House's role in more than 40
    "contacts" it had with federal regulators about a probe of Madison
    Guaranty Savings and Loan Assoc may have been compromised after
    administration officials obtained a confidential report detailing the
    governments case against the thrift.  
    
    The suspected compromise, according to congressional investigators,
    will be one of the subjects of Senate banking committee Whitewater
    hearings set to begin next month, and House banking committee hearings
    tenatively scheduled for this summer.
    
    The panels want to know if the Treasury Dept released to the White
    House a secret legal analysis written by the Resolution Trust Corp on
    it's investigation of Madison, owned by James B. McDougal, business
    partner of the Clinton's, the sources said.
    
    The anaysis outlined the government's case against Madison and reviewed
    nine RTC criminal referrals that named the Clintons as potentian
    witnesses and the Clinton Gubernatorial campaign as a possible target. 
    The sources said the analysis also offered a legal opinion by the RTC's
    professional liability section.
    
    
    
    article continues......

    I believe they call that "Obstruction of Justice".  Uh-Oh.
    Good thing Bill's back in Russia practicing his Goosestep.
    Prezident AlGor may have to get his Pardon-pen warmed up.

    I've been wondering why everything has been so quiet on
    Whitewatergate.  Little to no mention of it on electronic
    media, very little in the papers.
    
    Does the WH really think they can sit on this until after the
    election?
    
    

    <<< Note 26.225 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
                          -< I don't think so....... >-

>    I've been wondering why everything has been so quiet on
>    Whitewatergate.  Little to no mention of it on electronic
>    media, very little in the papers.
>    
>    Does the WH really think they can sit on this until after the
>    election?

Don't forget the rational (albeit, not very satisfying, I'm sure) 
explanation for the silence: not much is happening. 

Be patient, though. Over the next month the house and senate will do 
everything in their power to make WW at least *seem* like a genuine scandal 
of presidential importance.

The mud wrestling we euphemistically call "Politics" is about to enter into
its championship competitions. 
    

    re: Note 26.226 by SHRCTR::DAVIS
    
    Nothing is being reported because "your too stupid to understand",
    or it's all old news and it's boring.  Ya, that's what's going on.
    32 pages of OJ though.  :^)   :^)   :^)     <-4 lady di

    <<< Note 26.227 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
     -< Nothing new.  Just a bunch of folks getting indicted and stuff.. >-

Now, Mike. Where did you learn about these indictments and stuff? Hell, 
even a dummy like me has managed to learn of a supeana (how the $&$! do you 
spell that?) here, and indictment there - from the "media" no less. But no
grand conspiracy has emerged. No blood on Bill and Hill's hands - or anyone
in the cabinet - has shown up yer, which makes it it all seem pretty quiet
still. And pretty damn disappointing for some, too, eh? ;') 

    subpoena

    
    re, .228 - you are correct.  What we have so far is a whole bunch of
    tawdry Arkansas crooks who plead guilty under the slightest federal
    pressure.  There are more coming, some with distant or close links
    to the Clintons (BC was guv, after all).  While GOP types are
    chomping at the bit to start in on Clinton's role in this long ago
    stuff, the investigators, who just want lots of heads on the wall,
    keep telling them to hold off.
    
      Given the S&L/real-estate scandals of the period, I wonder if half
    the other states wouldn't produce a few dozen now-filthy-rich
    charlatans with links to statehouses.  But of course, THOSE guvs
    didn't get into the White House, so there is no special prosecutor.
    
      What a stench the S&L business STILL gives off !!  I was recently
    in Fla with a car.  The interior is littered with half-built, now
    abandoned mansions, which nobody wants.  Hundreds of billions, now
    pretty much written off.  A sad chapter in the history of American
    "thrift".
    
      bb

    
    <-------
    
    Some car!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    :)
    

           <<< Note 26.229 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

Thanks, Doctah. I wasn't even close. :-(

    Those are the hazards of being hooked on phonics, ;-)

<------ good'un :')

WHAT IS WHITEWATER REALLY ALL ABOUT?
By Sherman H. Skolnick

The popular press would have us believe that Whitewater was a few 
real estate mistakes of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Totally no more 
than 69 thousand dollars or so. Why the press is kidding us may 
become more clear after considering a few items the press has not 
seen fit to tell us.

William Jefferson Clinton deems himself a clever man. Recruited 
by CIA early on, he was in a position to understand counter- 
intelligence and espionage agencies using different financial 
entities as a money laundry to disguise covert action funds.

Bill was recruited by Central Intelligence supposedly as a 
travelling student. In Prague, at the time [of] the Soviets' 
bloody seizure from the local communists, Bill stayed at the home 
of the son of a leading communist leader. Those not understanding 
the use of students as spies and counter-spies might simply label 
Clinton as a "Red". Actually, Bill was part of a CIA counter- 
espionage scheme, similar to the role of Allard K. Lowenstein as 
head of the National Student Association in the 1950s. 
Lowenstein's operation, somewhat similar to Bill's, was done with 
foundations acting as conduits for CIA funding. Some journalists, 
like this writer, began confronting Lowenstein with his CIA 
links. While plotting to help Ted Kennedy somehow steal the 1980 
presidential election, Lowenstein was blown away by a so-called 
"lone assassin".

Clinton also went to Moscow, again the travelling student with an 
espionage agenda. He accomplished what his bosses at CIA 
considered a brilliant move: Clinton stole a secret transcript of 
a tongue-lashing one Soviet dictator gave to others in their 
ruling elite. Conveyed by Clinton to CIA, this endeared Bill to 
the Rockefellers. After all, CIA's worldwide job has been to 
guard Rockefeller's foreign oil properties.

So Clinton's rise to power has to be understood in this context. 
After all, Arkansas is a sizeable state with a small population. 
Is it a secret the Rockefellers own and operate Arkansas? 
Winthrop Rockefeller was Governor of the State a few terms before 
Bill. Worthen Banking Group and the Jackson Stephens family -- 
headquartered in Little Rock -- are the largest bond brokers and 
investment bankers outside of Wall Street. They apparently are 
all fronting for the Rockefellers and the American spy shop.

Hillary Rodham is a CIA darling as well, in some ways separate 
and apart from "Sludge Willie". In spook parlance, they are a 
"CIA couple". Yes, they are married and had a daughter. Yet, Bill 
and Hillary are part of somewhat separate espionage agendas. 
Hillary understands plenty. She was a key aide during the 
Watergate investigation whitewash of the role of CIA. Put in a 
nutshell, Nixon wanted to become an imperial president by 
blackmailing CIA on their role in the murder of President 
Kennedy. CIA double agents supposedly working for the Nixon 
White House arranged to get themselves caught at the Watergate 
Hotel. Result: the downfall of Nixon, arranged by CIA, and 
Hillary, early in her career, played her part.

Hillary went on to become board chairman of a CIA foundation 
instrumental in funding dirty tricks using agents provocateurs. 
The CIA and their use of foundations, like the one later headed 
by Hillary, is a story all by itself. This writer once taught a 
course at a radio/TV broadcast school on the subject of CIA and 
their foundations and how to research and investigate the same.

An entity much-used by CIA was the Bank of Credit and Commerce 
International [BCCI]. Foreign espionage agencies, like those of 
France and Israel, likewise used BCCI. The popular press has 
given Americans the false understanding that the rogue bank was a 
purely Arab creature.

There are profound reasons why the mass media are fearful of 
pushing too hard on the Clintons. The fall-out would damage a few 
other windows as well.

In 1991, four major news organizations had obtained the bribery 
list, showing who BCCI had bribed, worldwide, including the 
United States. By some mystery it was, for thirty days only, a 
public record at the Bank of England. One of these news groups 
corroborated that the list was correct as to the United States. 
According to the details, 108 members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and 28 U.S. Senators received bribes from BCCI. 
Part of the scheme involved 6 Chicago commodity brokers, some 
with offices in London. One of them, Capcom, was reportedly 
secretly owned by major officials of one of the largest cable 
companies with purported links to Turner Broadcasting of Atlanta.

BCCI wanted to penetrate the American banking scene in a big way. 
They did a thing natural to cynical big business: they bought 
Congress. The details were too shocking for the major news group. 
So a brave journalist turned over the details to this writer and 
his associates who further verified the details and wrote 
exclusive stories in 1991. Reportedly implicated was Wendy Gramm, 
at the time head of the federal agency regulating commodity 
brokers, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. She is the 
wife of Senator Phil Gramm (R., Texas).

The strange death of Vincent Foster, jr., Clinton White House 
aide, is bound up with activities of Foster and Hillary to assist 
BCCI to penetrate American business.

Records of the House Banking Committee show BCCI was practically 
a twin of another scandal-ridden operation, Banca Nazionale del 
Lavoro [BNL], Italy's largest bank, owned in part by the Vatican. 
The Congressional Committee sought further records of BNL's 
Chicago branch. A Federal judge in Chicago, close to the Bush 
White House, issued an injunction to stop the House Banking 
Committee from using records of BNL Chicago. Involved were huge 
transactions of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi strongman, and his 
secret, private business partner. In May, 1991, shortly after the 
Persian Gulf War, the case ended up to be heard by a three-judge 
panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. This writer and 
his associates were the only journalists attending the hearing. 
Afterwards, in the back of the courtroom, we did exclusive 
interviews with some of the participants in the case. They 
confirmed what we had heard elsewhere from reliable sources: that 
George Herbert Walker Bush, at the time President, was the 
secret, private business partner in joint ventures with the Iraqi 
dictator. Involved in the bank records were tens of billions of 
dollars of oil kick-backs from various Persian Gulf oil-soaked 
sheikdoms, shared by Bush and his cronies with Saddam Hussein. 
The Iraqi dictator was the bully boy of the Persian Gulf and 
received 25 percent of the proceeds of oil shipped to the West. 
So, when oil was 20 dollars per barrel, Hussein split the 5 
dollar per barrel kick-back with Bush and his bunch. A trillion 
dollars of oil was shipped from the Gulf in the decade, 1980 to 
1990. The corrupt rake-off amounted to 25 billion dollars per 
year, making Saddam Hussein and Bush the richest men on the 
planet.

The federal trial judge had ordered the Banking Committee to 
return the records and enjoined their disclosure and use. After 
the appeals court hearing, the Bush Justice Department leaked 
details to certain journalists, that one of the 3-judge panel had 
taken bribes, known to the Justice Department, in eight other 
unrelated cases. In that context, the end result became obvious. 
The appeals court panel ordered the BNL Chicago case to be 
removed from the courthouse, a way of hushing the matter up.

The press, other than small publications, will not say a single 
word about the case of Bank Lavoro's Chicago branch. And not a 
single committee of the House or Senate will utter a single word 
about the Chicago mess. Congress and the press have discussed a 
federal case involving BNL's Atlanta branch. Some 5 billion 
dollars was secretly diverted to Iraq -- a paltry sum by 
comparison to BNL Chicago. Disguised as Agriculture Department 
loans, the funds were diverted for Iraq to buy weapons from 
American companies.

The press and Congress have omitted some key details about Iraq 
and BNL Atlanta. The deal was arranged and strategized by Hillary 
Rodham Clinton in conjunction with her law partner at the Rose 
Law Firm in Little Rock, namely, [Vince] Foster. Part of the 
Iraqi weapons money reportedly was washed through the banks of 
Clinton's cronies, Jackson Stephens and the Worthen Banking 
Group.

                   [...to be continued...]

    Perhaps we should start a topic for off the wall conspiracy narratives.

    
      No need. D'Amato starts up next month or so.  You can expect
     WW soundbites right through to the primaries.
    
      bb

    I wonder if Jim believes pigs fly, too?
    

WHAT IS WHITEWATER REALLY ALL ABOUT?
By Sherman H. Skolnick

[...continued...]

Almost all in the press ignored the story that the Federal 
Reserve was investigating Hillary and Foster in respect to money 
laundering [of] illicit funds through foreign bank arrangements.

Were the deals with BNL Chicago and BNL Atlanta arranged by and 
through CIA? With the aid of former CIA Director George Bush and 
CIA darling Hillary? A host of circumstantial details, enough to 
fill several books, tend to prove that.

Then there is the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the 
mysterious fifty million dollars. Some background gives the 
context.

Pending since 1984 have been a slew of state and federal cases in 
the Chicago area that together have come to be called the 
Andreuccetti Affair. Named for Joseph Andreuccetti, a west 
suburban caulking contractor pushed, he says, into *involuntary* 
bankruptcy by massive fraud of several banks and savings and 
loans. One such S&L [was] taken over by Household International, 
parent of Household Bank, together successors to the CIA-linked 
Nugan-Hand Bank of Australia. (See: Jonathan Kwitny's book, *The 
Crimes of Patriots*.)

Because of large, pending claims by Andreuccetti against the 
defunct S&L, the federal bail-out machine, Resolution Trust 
Corporation [RTC], set up a 58 million dollar fund parked with 
Household. One of Joe's [Andreuccetti's] attorneys more or less 
supervised the fund, John E. Gierum. In January, 1994, Gierum, of 
suburban Park Ridge, confessed to this writer, in the presence of 
Andreuccetti, about Gierum's troubles. Gierum has been a close 
crony of Hillary's family (originally from Park Ridge), the 
Rodhams. The White House, Gierum confessed, is trying to frame 
Gierum for the secret transfer of 50 million dollars of that 
contingency fund. The fund was transferred to Little Rock, to 
make good some 47 million dollars gone from Madison Guaranty 
Savings and Loan; some federal sources blame the President and 
First Lady for the missing 47 million dollars, talking darkly of 
mis-appropriation or bank embezzlement.

Gierum knew this writer from a probe of the Andreuccetti Affair 
by a court reform group headed by this writer. Gierum said he did 
not think he could prevent from getting "framed" for the 
mysterious 50 million dollar transfer.

"You're a skilled lawyer, you should be able to defend yourself," 
Gierum was told. The attorney explained mournfully that the 
powers that be, that is, the Clinton White House, have the matter 
set up, and the usual defense of the law and the facts cannot 
help Gierum.

Reliable federal sources told us some 32 bookkeepers were unable 
to locate or figure out how the 50 million dollars disappeared 
from Household and RTC Chicago. By the way, is it just 
coincidence? Former CIA pilot Terry Reed, in his book, 
*Compromised*, telling how he flew CIA dope into the airport at 
Mena, Arkansas, also mentions a mysterious 50 million dollars.

Other senior federal sources contend part of the 50 million 
dollars was funneled to the Grand Cayman Islands, with the 
reported help of Fuji Bank, and then, on to Switzerland. A Swiss 
bank reportedly has part of the money, mixed in with other 
illicit funds gathered for Clinton, part of it reportedly dope 
loot, under the code name "Chelsea Jefferson" -- "Chelsea" being 
the name of Clinton's daughter, and "Jefferson" being Bill's 
middle name.

In the Andreuccetti cases, the details of Hillary's crony 
Gierum's confession are a matter of court record. Gierum was 
served a copy and he did not dispute the same.

RTC investigators have known about the 50 million dollar fund 
secretly disappearing and secretly transferred to Little Rock, to 
cover up the reported Clinton embezzlement. One RTC senior 
investigation specialist was looking too deep into the matter: 
Jon Parnell Walker. He was "suicided", that is, murdered, by 
being thrown off a building in Arlington, Virginia. His friends, 
family, and co-workers all agree on one fact: Walker was not 
depressed; maybe just impulsive. In any case, Walker's demise was 
to show other RTC people it is unhealthy to look into such things 
as the 50 million dollar mystery.

Another mess involving Hillary and Foster involves the Chicago 
operation of RTC. For several years, RTC's major outside 
attorneys were the Chicago-based firm of Hopkins & Sutter. So 
important was the law firm, RTC's offices were actually *inside* 
Hopkin's Chicago office. Hopkins & Sutter, for RTC, arranged for 
two members of a distant law firm, namely Hillary Rodham Clinton 
and Vincent Foster, jr., of the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, to 
work the clean-up details of a defunct savings and loan of a west 
suburb of Chicago. The S&L, owned by former Illinois Governor Dan 
Walker, sr., went under in part because of corrupt bond deals 
done with the Clinton business crony, Dan Lasater. Part of the 
fall-out resulted in Dan Walker, sr., going to prison.

Hillary and Foster did a cover up job. And, is it just another 
coincidence that Hopkins & Sutter partner, Jay Steinberg, is also 
the bankruptcy trustee in the Andreuccetti Affair; Steinberg 
himself reportedly involved in the mysterious 50 million dollar 
transfer to Little Rock?

Hillary and her law partner Foster were also reportedly 
implicated in arranging the transfer of illicit funds resulting 
from the cocaine shipments by CIA pilots into Mena. Here is how 
it reportedly worked:

1. The dope loot was washed through the Arkansas Development 
Finance Authority [ADFA], a state creature originated by Bill 
Clinton as Governor.

2. From there, the dope funds were transferred, in part, to 
Arkansas banks and bond brokers who transferred the loot to 
Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago. That is a small, 
closely-held bank; the owners include:
   *** Dan Rostenkowski, owner for more than 20 years of the bank; 
       for more than 30 years a Congressman; now a scandalized 
       former Congressman;
   *** Dan Shannon, once board chairman of that bank; he and his 
       family closely linked to the illicit financial operations 
       of Mayor Richard J. Daley, who ran Chicago City Hall for 
       21 years, and his son Richie, Chicago mayor since 1989;
   *** And, the most important owner, reportedly, as to this 
       context, Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother who went to law 
       school with Gierum and is the White House connection.

Federal investigators contend they have been investigating the 
Garfield Ridge Bank for the last 2-and-a-half years, as to the 
dope money trail from Arkansas.

>From that bank, the dope loot was reportedly transferred, in 
part, to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange which also helped cover 
up Hillary's mysterious 100 thousand dollar windfall on commodity 
speculations. Several traders on the "Merc", although contending 
they are not personally involved, admitted to this writer that 
they expect a horrendous scandal because of the washing on the 
"Merc" of Mena dope money.

>From the "Merc", the dope loot, in turn, was reportedly washed 
through offshore accounts, reportedly, again, by Fuji Bank, for 
the benefit of the Clintons.

Some of the Arkansas dope loot was disguised as fraudulent or 
non-existent "loans" of the U.S. Small Business Administration 
[SBA]. Although the Chicago regional office of SBA does not 
include Arkansas, the funds were washed through Chicago. Is it 
just another coincidence that White House crony John E. Gierum 
has also been senior litigation attorney for the Small Business 
Administration?

As more and more details pile up, you can see why Gierum's 
undisputed confession takes on such significance.

What were some of the purposes of the dope money? Some 18 
sizeable businesses have reportedly been financed this way, 
including, reportedly, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt Trucking, and Wal- 
Mart. We understand that Wal-Mart officials vigorously deny dope 
funds played any part in the spreading out of their Arkansas- 
based firm, nationwide. Perhaps someone never told them.

State and federal law enforcement authorities contend that Tyson 
Foods and Don Tyson, the boss until recently, have long been 
implicated in dope trafficking. Is Don Tyson, who stepped down as 
head of the firm, evading a federal grand jury subpoena by way of 
his extended vacation to the Cayman Islands? Some think so.

Then there is the circumstance of San Jacinto Savings & Loan, 
once located in a Texas town with the same name. Federal 
investigators contend somewhere between 15 and 150 million 
dollars disappeared, by way of non-existent home loans to 
Arkansas, and that Hillary is involved. A senior federal bank 
investigator, returning from his work in Texas, said cryptically, 
"Hillary is going to prison."

Unanswered questions:

1. Did Bill and Hillary Clinton benefit from all the apparent 
embezzlement of savings & loan and other funds?

2. Did they only partly benefit personally?

3. Were they, either together, or each in a different project, 
fronting for CIA covert fund activities, such as at Mena?

4. Is the really big secret about all this -- Mena, Little Rock, 
Chicago, Atlanta -- that the illicit activities of the Clintons 
overlapped the covert and illicit doings of George Bush and Ollie 
North? And that this is what is causing both Democrats and 
Republicans to be hung up, not wanting to really finger the 
Clinton White House?

    
    
>    I wonder if Jim believes pigs fly, too?
    
    	::REESE, I have made it painfully clear in the past that I do not
    necessarily believe in the posts that I make....I post them for
    informational purposes only. People can make of them what they will.
    
    	Your comment is unwarranted.
    
    
    jim
       

    Jim,
    
    Sorry I offended you; however these postings chew up a lot of disk
    space for "information" that is dubious at best.
    
    

    
>    Sorry I offended you; however these postings chew up a lot of disk
>    space for "information" that is dubious at best.
    
    	In your opinion the information is dubious. Others may have a
    different opinion. As far as the disk space goes, is this conference
    not compressed and cleaned up from time to time? On a personal note, I
    feel the OJ topic to be the biggest waste of disk space....
    
    jim

> As far as the disk space goes, is this conference
> not [...] cleaned up from time to time?

Occasionally, such as when George M. recently left.

    
    From today's Washington Times
    
    Secret Service officer to tell panel he saw papers leave Foster's
    office
    
    by Jerry Seper
    
    The special Whitewater committee will call as a key witness a uniformed
    U.S. Secret Service officer who says he saw first lady Hillary Rodham
    Clinton's chief of staff remove paper's from Vincent W. Foster Jr.'s
    office on the night of the day the White House deputy counsel died.
    
    The uniformed officer, Henry O'Neill, told prosecutors last year that
    while accompanying a cleaning crew to Mr. Foster's office after the
    July 20, 1993 suicide, he saw the aide, Margaret A. Williams, carry the
    unidentified papers out of the West Wing suite.
    
    "Officer O'Neill is of particular interest to the committee and
    certainly will get an opportunity to tell the members what he saw,"
    said one committee staffer.  "If true, his testimony directly refutes
    the White House's version of what happened that night."
    
    

    
      I'm not sure if this belongs in the TV note, but C-SPAN/C-SPAN2
     have been carrying an overdose of D'Amato/Leach hearings.  The
     most striking thing to me is the different tone of the Senate and
     House.  As usual, the House committee spends most of its time
     screaming at itself, so the witnesses have trouble giving testimony.
     On the other hand, a Senator will start with a ritual preamble,
     like, "With all due respect to the honorable junior senator from
     Mississippi, the question asked may have inadvertantly left the
     impression..."  In the House, this would be, "We can by his
     question the hidden agenda of subterfuge of..."
    
      bb

    -1
    
    Why do you consider it an overdose? If this were WaterGate, all
    network programming would have been pre-empted and we would be
    subjected to gavel-to-gavel coverage :-)
    
    

Is it really necessary for there to be two separate hearings?

    So, is she going to jail or what?

    
    Have you noticed, everything points to Hillary, nothing to Bill.  
    Is this a coincidence?  Is it just that Bill is as stupid as he acts?
    Or is it that they were cagey enough to tie her (not an elected
    official) to it so that he (an elected official), can not be touched?

    Dan

    Check out the column in today's WSJ by Brent Bozell, chairman of the
    Media Research Center.  Basically he pans the national news media
    for rolling over and playing patsy with the Clintoons regarding
    Whitewater etc.  An excerpt:
    
      It is not only that the media refuse to investigate the past
      (everything before Mr. Clinton's election is somehow deemed
      irrelevant)--they are refusing to cover what is unfolding before
      their very eyes.
    
    After describing several emerging scandals that the national media
    chose to ignore, Bozell points to these failures as explanation for
    the popularity of talk radio, which evidently is covering Whitewater
    more completely.
                    

    Now there's a shocker!  Our journalists have all become editorialists!

Starr expands Whitewater probe to bankers' 1990
donations to Clinton


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Nov 27, 1995 - 00:02 EST) -- Whitewater
prosecutors expanded their investigation of Bill Clinton's 1990 campaign
for governor, but the probe has been stymied since the summer because
two Arkansas bankers are waging a secret court battle that is blocking
access to their financial records.

In an investigation that originally focused on White House aide Bruce
Lindsey, Whitewater prosecutors are trying to determine whether funds
from a bank owned by Herby Branscum Jr. and Robert M. Hill were
funneled into Clinton's campaign, say lawyers familiar with the
investigation.

The focus of the probe: $7,000 in donations from the families of
Branscum and Hill, owners of the Perry County Bank in Perryville, Ark.,
where the Clinton campaign kept its accounts.

Attorneys for Branscum and Hill deny any misuse of bank funds.

According to three non-government lawyers familiar with the
investigation, former Perry County Bank president Neal Ainley told
prosecutors he was reimbursed from a bank expense fund for $1,000 he
donated to the Clinton campaign on the same day the Branscum and Hill
contributions were made.

Ainley told prosecutors he believed that the Branscum and Hill family
donations came from bank funds, too, but that they had been disguised,
said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Ainley's lawyer,
Jay Bequette of Little Rock, Ark., declined comment.

Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr obtained five grand jury
subpoenas, demanding records from Branscum, Hill, the bank and a pair
of professional corporations set up by the two bankers.

Hill and Branscum challenged the subpoenas before U.S. District Judge
Stephen Reasoner, who ruled against them Aug. 17. Their appeal, filed
under seal, is pending before the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St.
Louis.

One of the sources said Whitewater investigators "are looking at possible
misapplication of bank funds because they think Herby and Rob were
taking money from the bank's working capital and running it through
them or family members to the Clinton campaign."

Misapplication of federally insured bank funds is a felony that carries a
maximum 10-year prison term. There would be no penalty for the
Clinton campaign or Lindsey if they were unaware of the source of any
misused funds. Lindsey is a longtime friend of Clinton's and was the
campaign treasurer in 1990.

A month after the donations, Branscum was appointed by then-Gov.
Clinton to Arkansas' powerful Highway Commission.

Lawyers for Hill and Branscum said in a joint reply that their clients
"have never made campaign contributions with money misappropriated
from the Perry County Bank or any other financial institution."

"If the Office of Independent Counsel believes that they have misapplied
bank funds, the Office of Independent Counsel is mistaken," the
statement concluded. "If anyone has told the Office of Independent
Counsel that they have misapplied bank funds, then that individual is
either untruthful or does not know what he is talking about."

Deputy Whitewater prosecutor John Bates declined comment.

Ainley, the former bank president, pleaded guilty May 2 to filing false
documents with the U.S. Treasury regarding $52,500 in cash
withdrawals from Perry County Bank by Lindsey and another Clinton
campaign aide.

Starr originally named Lindsey as a target, someone who is likely to be
indicted. On May 19, Starr announced he would continue the
investigation but planned no immediate action against anyone.

Three weeks later, Starr's office secretly applied to Attorney General
Janet Reno to expand its probe, according to court records.

The lawyers said the expansion, which Reno endorsed June 21 and a
three-member panel of federal appeals judges approved July 28, covered
the donations by the families of Branscum and Hill.



    
    
    Former Assoc Attorney General Webster Hubbell turned over files on a
    failed Arkansas thrift under investigation by federal regulators to the
    Clintons' personal attorney 4 months after Vince Foster's death, the
    special Senate Whitewater committee was told yesterday.
    
    
    

    No sleaze there.

    The WH is citing lawyer-client privilege as the reason for not handing
    over material/papers/info...
    
    Right.... no sleaze at all...
    
    As an aside, front page story in Boston Globe today is trying to equate
    things done by Newt with those done by Slick....
    
    Right... no bias there...
    

 
 
 
 
The Washington Times - December 8, 1995
 
              SOUND ASLEEP WITH THE PRESS WATCHDOGS
 
By Wesley Pruden
 
If you get it, you won't get it. 
 
Most of the lazy reporters in town read The Washington Post, and
this is so intellectually fatiguing that many of them are too
exhausted to read anything else. They miss most of what's going on
in their world.
 
Lloyd Grove, one of the Style scribblers in The Post's toy
department, complained in print yesterday that the Whitewater
hearings are so tedious that senators, spectators and even
witnesses are losing the struggle to stay awake. Why couldn't he be
assigned to cover something really relevant, like the collapse of
Michael Jackson?
 
Sara Fritz, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, spends most of
her time in the press seats knitting a nice green afghan. Who needs
to take notes when you're struggling to ignore the most important
story in town? (To give Miss Fritz the benefit of the doubt, which
journalists expect as their due, she may be knitting the afghan for
Hillary Clinton, the patron saint of most of the ladies of the
press, just in case. Webb Hubbell could tell her about drafty
places.)
 
The president and the first lady and their batteries of lawyers and
regiments of public relations flacks have so far managed the
messengers if not the news, successfully encouraging most of them
to treat Whitewater either as (a) a bore or (b) a hoot and (c) a
giggle. 
 
Like The Post, the New York Times puts the Whitewater story - which
it concedes may soon become a story of a historic constitutional
clash between the White House and Congress - so far back among the
ads for nose jobs and golf bags that only an editorial writer with
a sharp eye could find it.
 
Fortunately, the front pages of the Washington Times are readily
available to sharp-eyed editorialists of The Post and the New York
Times, and this week these editorialists have produced editorials
that go straight to the point of what is at stake in the "dull"
Whitewater hearings. While the front pages of their newspapers are
emblazoned with the campaign to get Newt, who is under
investigation for an offense that could result in a fine of $1,000,
the editorial pages seem to understand that the Clinton White House
may be manipulating the evidence, the law and the public in just
the way that the Nixon White House did it a quarter of a century
ago. The penalties for this sort of statecraft run to impeachment
and a stretch at Allenwood.
 
 
If the hooting "Washington journalists" were cops and came upon a
woman racing down a deserted street bleeding, naked and screaming
"Rape!" their first instinct would be to tip their hats to the
rapist and arrest the woman for jaywalking.
 
But the water's rising, and even inside the thick marble walls of
the White House almost anyone should be able to hear the roar: "The
hearings have also reaffirmed that Hillary Rodham Clinton's
associates seem incapable of producing candid answers to questions
about the events following the Foster suicide and the handling of
the Whitewater documents in his office," observes the New York
Times. "They served the committee a stew of evasions and memory
lapses that can only further undermine public confidence in the
administration's integrity." 
 
The Post editorial page, which usually squeaks, yesterday bubbled:
"Since Mr. Foster's suicide, congressional committees and reporters
looking into the White House's handling of his papers have had a
very difficult time learning what key Clinton associates did after
hearing of Mr. Foster's death, with whom they talked, what
documents were removed from his office and to whom they were
given....
 
"Has the White House, through these twists, managed to throw
suspicion over matters of little consequence, or is something
serious being covered up? The question is everywhere these days, in
large part because of all the improbable and implausible responses
that have been made to inquiries so far. If the White House can
clear them up, it surely should."
 
Indeed, if the White House could, the White House would. The naive
among us, so innocent of Arkansas folk ways, have repeated the
yearning, as if a mantra, that if only the Clintons would tell
everything they know we could all put Whitewater behind us. The
Clintons, with more to lose than the rest of us, know better. 
 
The squirmy evasions of Bruce Lindsey and William Kennedy,
desperate to follow instructions not to tell anything they know of
the White House sessions to plot the modified limited hangout, are
a haunting reprise of the testimony of John Dean and H.R. "Bob"
Haldeman.
 
Well, welcome to the story, guys. Mr. Nixon survived for a while on
the distractions of the war in Vietnam. So may bill and Hillary
with the distractions of a murderous peace in Bosnia. 
 
But only for a little while.
 
 

    ^As an aside, front page story in Boston Globe today is trying to equate
    ^things done by Newt with those done by Slick....
    
    Seems reasonable to me. Anyone who thinks that these two aren't on the
    same team is living in a dream world.

    
    <-------
    
    I gotta find that store that sells those bronze politicians!!!
    
    :)
    

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Clinton's concealing vital evidence in Whitewater probe


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON (Dec 11, 1995 - 16:35 EST) -- On Nov. 5, 1993, armed with
improperly obtained warnings about criminal references involving the
president and Mrs. Clinton, four federal employees went to consult with
three privately hired Clinton lawyers.

One of the private lawyers was Denver's James Lyons, whose "report" during
the 1992 campaign threw most reporters off the Whitewater scandal's scent;
five months before, Lyons was a caller to, and scheduled to be a visitor of,
Vincent Foster, at the time of his apparent suicide.

At least one of the publicly paid White House aides -- associate White
House counsel William Kennedy III -- made extensive notes of that Nov. 5
meeting.

We do not know if those notes reveal a conspiracy to obstruct justice, but
we do know they are so damaging that the Clintons will fight to the Supreme
Court to keep them from public view.

Gone is all past pretense of cooperating with investigators. To conceal that
and related memos of Nov. 5, the Clintons have evoked no "executive privilege,"
with its Watergate connotation, but chose instead "lawyer-client privilege."

Trying to place his tawdry cover-up on a high moral plane, Clinton explained:
"Given the fact that this will set a big precedent, I don't believe the
president should say he's not entitled to have complete confidence in his
own lawyer."

The key to that is "his own." When anybody hires or is assigned a personal
lawyer, the privilege of confidentiality usually exists, unless a new crime
is being planned.

But nobody paid by the public is the president's "own"; White House counsel,
as we saw with John Dean in Watergate, is not beyond the reach of
investigators. The legal allegiance of all public employees is to the public
that pays them and not to the superiors they report to.

Let's figure out what is going on. "If they testify about the private
conversation between the president and his lawyer," said Vice President Al
Gore on "Meet the Press" Sunday, "then that allows the complete elimination
of the lawyer-client privilege." He went on with "They cannot give the
details of a private conversation between the president and his lawyer."

Who are they? The only ones in that meeting asked to testify are the four on
the public payroll: Bruce Lindsey, the Clintons' closest confidant since
Foster's death and the cover-up coordinator; Bernard Nussbaum, the federal
employee titled White House counsel, and two of his assistants, Neil Eggleston
and William Kennedy III. The key notes subpoenaed were taken by Kennedy, not
by the three privately paid personal lawyers.

From that we can deduce that one of the personal lawyers related a privileged
conversation he had with the Clintons to four agents of the federal government,
at least one of whom wrote it down contemporaneously. That surely breached
confidentiality, and the document recording it can be subpoenaed in a
government investigation.

The alternate deduction: One of the public employees passed some embarrassing
or incriminating information about a conversation with the Clintons on to
private counsel. That was never privileged because it went through a public
intermediary, a White House aide.

My guess: After the White House aides revealed to Clinton's counsel their tips
about criminal investigations, one of the private counsel, like a legal sap,
relayed something his client told him, and Kennedy, like a political sap,
wrote it down. After years of hiding it from Justice and Congressional
investigators, the Clintons cooked up this legal barrier.

Why hasn't the independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, who is reportedly
seeking the same Nov. 5 accounts, subpoenaed everything Kennedy ever wrote
about Whitewater?

The courts might choose to demur in a fight between legislative and executive
branches, but Starr is more a creature of the judicial branch. If he added
his own subpoena, not even Senate Democrats could find legalities to quash it.

A mysterious death; witnesses unbelievably forgetful about calls made in its
aftermath; conflicts in sworn testimony about concealment of the dead man's
files; now claims to a privilege of secrecy. Something is under that
Whitewater rock.

    Every time I read something about this apparent crime I keep wondering
    why all of the folks who want to make such an issue out of Newt's
    indiscretions aren't up in arms over this.
    
    It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Clinton's were involved in
    some very illegal activities in Arkansas.  The issue before us now is
    why would Hillary, who was part of the Nixon investigations, set out on
    a course of obstruction of justice.
    
    two things come to my mind.  The first is that these charges, if ully
    investigated, would result in criminal charges and prison time.  This
    means that every effort needs to be made to cover them up.  The second,
    which I personally believe, is that Hillary believes, because of the
    liberal, socialist leanings of the major media, she can be above the
    law.  She believes that as long as she remains the icon of the liberals
    they will take all of the arrows and handle the deflections for her.
    
    I think this thing is starting to come apart on the Clinton's and I can
    only hope that it gets full play before the elections.
     

     Z   Every time I read something about this apparent crime I keep wondering
     Z   why all of the folks who want to make such an issue out of Newt's
     Z   indiscretions aren't up in arms over this.
    
    Human nature.  Everybody wants their guy to win.  Consider the lunatics 
    screaming during the Clarence Thomas fiasco.  Judge Hirschner and
    company were up in arms...but when poor Paula Jones brings up charges
    against our inerrant president, she is a misguided fool according to
    the same crackpots that called for Thomas' head on a platter.  It's all
    phoney partisan emotionalism and when one of your champions is in
    danger of severe reprimand, the press and the loonies will become
    remarkably silent!
    
    -Jack

    this is also very old and since nothing has really surfaced (proof)
    that would rattle the WH no one is very interested anymore. give
    the salamander another year of dragging and this too will wind down.

    ^It's all phoney partisan emotionalism and when one of your champions 
    ^is in danger of severe reprimand
    
    You are sooooo right Jack. The sad thing is that any of these clowns are
    considered champions by anybody. 

    I guess response 262 pretty much identifies the real problem.  The
    proof is surfacing day after day and little Ms Hillary is right in the
    middle of it.
    
    It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and I think the
    real facts are going to be coming out fairly soon.  I wonder what the
    writer of 262 is going to say when the real truth about this
    administration comes out.
    
    I know, just claim that it is more partisan attacks on poor little Slick
    and the Mrs.
    

    I don't have your optimism. I don't think that the truth is going to
    come out. Mz Rodham learned well how to cover things up by Nixon's
    mistakes. They are doing an excellent job of stonewalling and
    whitewashing. So much so that people like Chip happily conclude that
    the white house denizens are doing all these legal contortions for
    their health, since everything's on the up and up. This is a stark
    contrast to conservatives, who joined the liberals when Nixon's
    shenanigans were finally brought into the open.

    
    Headline on pg. 3 of yesterday's Boston Globe
    
    
    
    Clinton rejects Senate subpoena
    
    Refuses to turn over Whitewater notes

    
    
    
    Boston Globe Thursday, Dec. 14,1995 pg. 33
    
    Panel pushed to Whitewater showdown
    
    D'Amato also sees a Senate vote to enforce subpeoena
     
    by Pete Yost ASSOCIATED PRESS
    
    WASHINGTON - The battle over Whitewater papers widened yesterday as
    Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.) urged his committee to pursue
    enforcement of subpeoenas for five documents the Clinton administration
    says are confidential.
    
     With President and Mrs. Clinton asserting attorney-client privilege,
    D'Amato said he believes that Senate leaders will support a floor vote
    as early as next week on enforcing subpeoenas for the documents.
    
     The Whiteeater Committee is scheduled to vote today on enforcing the
    subpeoenas. After Senate action, the next step would be civil
    proceedings in a federal court.
    
     "I would urge the president and Mrs. Clinton to reconsider, because
    the American people do have a right to know what went on in a Nov. 5,
    1993, meeting involving four White House aides and three personal
    lawyers for the Clintons, said D'Amato, the committee chairman.
    
     The documents include notes of the meeting made by former White House
    lawyer William Kennedy. The session, lasting more than two hours,
    followed months of information gathering by presidential aides on two
    Whitewater-related criminal probes.
    
     In addition to Kennedy's notes, the White House is withholding four
    other subpoenaed Whitewater documents that the committee believes it is
    entitled to, according to Michael Chertoff, the attorney for the
    panel's Republicans.
    
     "Why are they hiding this?" asked Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
    
     On the other side, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, the committee's ranking
    Democrat, said D'Amato and the other Republicans are "provoking a
    confrontation." He said the White House offer to negotiate a compromise
    should be accepted.
    
     Kennedy declined to comply with a Tuesday deadline to turn over the
    meeting notes.
    
     A White House list released at the committee hearing identifies the
    other Whitewater documents that have not been turned over as:
    
     * A draft chronology on Whitewater by the Clintons' personal attorney,
    David Kendall, who presided at the Nov.5, 1993 meeting. Kendall's
    chronology is dated five days later.
    
     * A Jan 5, 1994, letter to the president on "Whitewater and other
    matters" from Washington attorney James Hamilton, who has represented
    the family of the late Vincent Foster and did work for the 1992
    presidential campaign.
    
     * A Dec. 20, 1993, New York Times article with notations by the
    president.
    
     * Undated notes of White House aide Joel Klein regarding the
    "Whitewater investment."
    
     The Clintons invoked attorney-client privilege in defying the Senate
    committee's efforts to get Kennedy's notes.
    
     And for the first time in the Whitewater dispute, the White House
    raised the issue of executive privilege Tuesday.
    
     "The Constitution gives the president the right to protect the
    confidentiality of material, the disclosure of which would
    significantly impair the performance of the president's lawful duties,"
    said a statement released by the WHite House.

    Oh, so the Republicans are provoking a showdown.  What a bunch of
    garbage; if George and Barbara Bush had been accused of the same
    misdeeds, we would have been treated to "gavel to gavel" coverage
    of the investigation, dims playing it to the hilt before TV
    cameras.  Newspapers would make daily headlines out of it.
    
    I hope D'Amato can light a fire under someone, if they don't get
    this investigation into high-gear this two wing-nuts will be
    back in the WH for another 4 years :-(
    

    This gets back to my original thoughts about this whole thing.  I
    believe that these two are dirty as hell over this and hopefully, all
    of it will come out.
    
    I think that these papres and the others that are being hidden are
    similar to the Nixon tapes.  If these papers showed nothing, or were
    innocent, these two would have them out in the press in a heartbeat
    showing their innocence.  Even if they were just questionable the media
    woudl have put such a spin on it that they would have implicated Newt,
    Dole and Armey in the affair before they got through with it.
    
    No, I think that these will result in a Nixon type "smoking gun" and
    the two of them will go down.  I just hope that we can get some honesty
    from the press about it and can get the front page coverage that Newt
    is getting.
    

    Even if there is as much behind this Whitewater affair as the
    White House's actions seem to show, it is likely that significant
    quantities of the truth will not come out until after the next
    election. Could this be Tricky Dicky II?

    What really puzzles me is the reactions of our liberal FOBs here.
    
    These folks were among the first to support the idiotic Democratic
    charges that Bush had to be investigated about the "October surprise"
    because there was no evidence of any sort that there had been any
    wrongdoing.  The rationale was that because no evidence had been
    uncovered that Congress had to investigate just to make sure that there
    really wasn't any evidence.
    
    These same folks now are surprisingly silent not just about the
    probable illegal activities that took place in Arkansas, but have
    nothing to say about the coverup and obstruction of justice currently
    going on.
    
    It's really cute to watch these feeble attempts to ignore this issue.
     

    yawn.

    
    
    As DougO would say... Payback's a bitch...
    

    If you catch 'im, boys, hang 'im high - but don't expect nobody to
    clap.
    
    DougO

>    If you catch 'im, boys, hang 'im high - but don't expect nobody to
>    clap.

So everyone will clap?

/scott

    >If you catch 'im, boys, hang 'im high - but don't expect nobody to
    >clap.
    
     I guess this means a lotta sleaze is ok, just so long as it's done by
    those of the correct ideology...

    Goes to show you that right and wrong isn't the issue at all.  It's all
    about the good guys and the bad guys.  I saw Barbara Boxer last night
    on CSPAN.  What a meeley mouthed little suck up she is huh?  The woman 
    doesn't have a genuine thought in her head!

    > I guess this means a lotta sleaze is ok, just so long as it's done by
    > those of the correct ideology...
    
    No, it means, as I spelled out in another note, let the investigations
    proceed.  But talk about spray and pray- how many YEARS have we had to
    put up with ceaseless attacks on Clinton before you guys finally found
    something that would stick?  So expect no applause- a million monkeys
    finally typed a line from Shakespeare.
    
    DougO

    
      Moving right along, I admit to forgetting most of what I once
     knew about Watergate (Nixon, not Clinton), but I seem to recall
     the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that Tricky Dicky COULDN'T invoke executive
     privilege against a congressional subpoena.  Or was that case
     significantly different ?  As I recall, 4 of the 9 were themselves
     Nixon appointees, but it made no difference, as the law of the
     matter from precedent was clear - they got the papers or tapes.
    
      Or am I mis-remembering ?
    
      bb

    I don't think it got that far.  The subpoena was issued in US District
    court and appealed.  The appeal was lost and Nixon caved before
    the case went to the supreme court.  It was the 20 ordinary
    American citizens of the grand jury that unanimously decided
    Nixon should hand over the tapes.

    >No, it means, as I spelled out in another note, let the investigations
    >proceed.  
    
     For which I salute you.
    
    >But talk about spray and pray- how many YEARS have we had to
    >put up with ceaseless attacks on Clinton before you guys finally found
    >something that would stick?  
    
     Not so, DougO. The attacks on Clinton have been primarily about a very
    few key issues, issues which the democratic congressional leadership
    and the Clinton administration tried to bury under the rug. The
    election of 94 changed that, and it's only Clinton's unwillingness to
    be forthcoming that has dragged things out the way they have been.
    
     And speaking about "the appearance of impropriety," cattlegate has red
    flags all over it. It screams of a sweetheart deal, from the obscene
    profit to the rule bending on margins.
    
    >So expect no applause- 
    
     One would expect you to applaud the results one way or another. You
    admit it looks like there's something behind the charges, so you should
    applaud the process wherever it brings us. Even if it brings
    exhoneration. Even if it brings a resignation in disgrace. The charges
    must be fully investigated, and fully disclosed. Otherwise the
    government is illegitimate.

    OK, I'll applaud the one monkey or ten that've been typing on the
    typewriter that eventually spelled Whitewater.  The other 999,990 get
    raspberries.  troopergate, travelgate, gays-in-the-military, fostergate,
    harassment and negative politics has been the GOP modus operandi and
    like I said, it gets no applause.  Don't pretend the years haven't been
    a ceaseless attack, Mark- even you can't convince anyone of that.  All
    I'd have to do is pull one note a month from the Clinton topic of the
    last few soapboxes for proof.
    
    congratulations, monkeys - the mud is finally sticking.  y'all ever
    notice that flinging it hasn't endeared you to the body politic?
    
    DougO

RE: 26.281 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "smooth, fast, bright and playful"

Whitewater sure looks like "spray and pray" to me.  It's been investigated. 
And investigated.  And investigated.  And investigated.  And investigated.  


> And speaking about "the appearance of impropriety," cattlegate has red
> flags all over it. It screams of a sweetheart deal, from the obscene
> profit to the rule bending on margins.

Cattlegate and Bookgate have the same smell,  and it ain't roses.


Phil

    
    re: .284
    
    >Whitewater sure looks like "spray and pray" to me.  It's been investigated.
    >And investigated.  And investigated.  And investigated.  And investigated.
    
     and lo and behold!!!! Nothing new has surfaced and/or been brought out
    in the open since then!!!!
    
     I guess we should just make D'Amato pack it in and let old Slick keep
    all those silly little notes and time-lines and other gobbley-gook what
    don't interest the common folk...
    

    re: Whitewater sure looks like "spray and pray" to me.  It's been
    investigated.
    
    BS.  The lid ain't even come off this deal.  When it does it'll
    be like political diahrea.  And BillC and Hillary will have a
    particularly bad case.
    
    On a somewhat unrelated note, think a little about all the elected
    help calling it quits.  How come?  The tables been set, the guests
    are starting to arrive.
    
    MadMike  

    How long did Watergate take?

	I think they did it in a night..... 

    .282
    
    Sometimes you seem to be able to mutter the truth even though you don't
    realize it.  Let me use your own words to help emphasize this.
    
    "troopergate, travelgate, gays-in-the-military, fostergate, ..."
    
    YOu claim this as monkeys banging out Shakespeare and harassment. 
    Well, which one of these had no basis.  Each and every one of them was
    worked by the press to minimize it's impact yet they all showed the
    moral bankruptcy of this President.  If you wan to call these "nothing"
    well you have your eyes closed or chose to ignore it.
    
    

 ZZ  "troopergate, travelgate, gays-in-the-military, fostergate, ..."
    
    Troopergate I don't know enough about.  Travelgate was most definity a
    blunder, haircut gate, stupidity at its best, gays in the military,
    hey, we have the right to dissent.
    
    

    Watergate took less than two years.
    
    whitewater has been going on since before the election in '92 and
    continues, ijf there was really something serious, one sould think that
    the hand-picked prosecutors and judges would have come up with
    something by now.

    
    Whitewater is a much bigger and complicated animal. Watergate was
    one burglary and a subsequent cover-up. Whitewater, on the other
    hand, involves dozens of people (many of whom are already under
    indictment or convicted), suspicious deaths, drug trafficking,
    money laundering, real estate scams, political influence for sale
    and many other aspects. Whitewater is the most complicated case
    to ever involve a president. In my opinion. Clinton, and in
    particular Hillary, has benefited greatly from the complicated nature
    of the inquiry... the fact that there is so much material involved
    makes it APPEAR that you are correct and there's nothing wrong;
    whereas I suspect that there is, in fact, some things that are
    VERY wrong.

    -b

           <<< Note 26.291 by CSC32::M_EVANS "cuddly as a cactus" >>>

>    Watergate took less than two years.
 
	Closer to three than two, from break-in to resignation.

Jim

Whitewater revival: Battle over notes brings the
affair back to the forefront


(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON (Dec 17, 1995 - 22:23 EST) -- President Clinton
delighted his Republican foes and dismayed his Democratic allies when
he refused to release legal notes to the Senate Whitewater Committee
last week. The showdown nudged the scandal back onto the network
news, even as the GOP's yearlong inquiry was slouching to an end with
no dramatic revelations.

New York's Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato, the Republican chairman of the
committee, acknowledged last week that White House tactics have
frustrated his investigation into the Clintons' Arkansas land deal and the
death of the White House lawyer Vincent Foster in 1993.

D'Amato accused the White House of stonewalling. "If one looks at the
record carefully, one can detect a clear pattern of faulty recollection," he
said, calling the answers of some White House witnesses "less than
straightforward" and "disingenuous."

Democrats on the committee mocked D'Amato, asserting that his
Whitewater investigation is a partisan fishing expedition.

"We've dug more dry holes than a bankrupt oil company," said Sen. Paul
Sarbanes of Maryland, the panel's ranking Democrat. "There's been no
sign of any illegal activity despite every effort to conjure up conspiracy
theories."

Privately, however, Democrats on the committee were fuming last week
at the way the White House revived the slumbering scandal by bungling
the handling of the subpoenaed notes. Clinton's staff has "taken a story
that has been relegated to page 46 for months and moved it back on the
front page," one Democratic committee source complained. "It makes it
look like they're hiding something."

The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday to ask a federal judge to
enforce the committee's subpoena of notes from a Nov. 5, 1993,
Whitewater briefing of Clinton's personal attorneys by his White House
counsels. A protracted legal battle could follow.

During the weekend, D'Amato offered to meet the White House part
way to resolve the dispute over the notes, but the matter was still up in
the air.

Sources familiar with the notes say there is nothing incriminating in
them. Democrats said Clinton and his staff, puffed up by recent favorable
polls and furious at harassment from D'Amato, have been arrogant in
not meeting the committee's request. The president asserts that
lawyer-client privilege protects the notes and that turning them over to
the committee would set a bad precedent.

As a criminal matter, Whitewater remains very much alive. Starr
continues his work in Little Rock, Ark., having convicted or indicted
more than a dozen Clinton friends and associates in the state. Starr is
preparing for the bank fraud trial of James McDougal, Clinton's partner
in the purchase of the Whitewater real estate in 1978. McDougal has
been charged with looting Madison Guaranty, a federally secured savings
and loan in the mid-1980s.

As a political matter, the Whitewater scandal, nearly five years old and
with no end in sight, has reached a kind of equilibrium: neither swelling
nor shrinking, yet refusing to go away.

Until last week, D'Amato's inquiry had produced many conspiracy
theories but no startling revelations. The committee focused on a
cover-up: Testimony from former White House counsel Bernard
Nussbaum and other White House aides indicated that Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her advisers were worried about what police might find if
given unfettered access to Foster's office and files in the days after his
suicide in July 1993.

"If I had been Mrs. Clinton in this circumstance and someone who had
been handling my personal affairs had shot himself, I would want my
chief of staff to go look for things that would apply to me personally, and
I'd want them in my personal possession," said Sen. Robert Bennett, a
Utah Republican. Mrs. Clinton's denial, Bennett said, "leads me to the
suspicion that maybe indeed there is something going on here that does
smack of some kind of a cover-up."

Under questioning by the committee Republicans, Margaret Williams,
Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, and Susan Thomases, Mrs. Clinton's close
friend, said they could not remember details of what happened in the
hours and days after Foster's death.

"This is the third time that we've had Ms. Williams before us, and each
time it has been my view that she has not told us the truth or her
memory has been selectively weak," said Sen. Lauch Faircloth, a North
Carolina Republican, during a hearing last week in which he called for
Williams' resignation.

Still, Republicans have not been able to prove any obstruction of justice
or that any documents related to Whitewater were missing from Foster's
office. Williams has passed two lie-detector tests.

Last week GOP senators followed three leads that produced dead ends.

First: Looking for evidence of a cover-up, the committee demanded
phone records from the home of Mrs. Clinton's mother in Arkansas,
where Mrs. Clinton was visiting at the time of Foster's death. They
showed that she had dialed a number the telephone company could not
identify in the hours after Foster died.

The mystery seemed to be solved when Texas lawyer William Burton,
who was working in the White House at the time, came forward and told
the committee Mrs. Clinton called him on an auxiliary phone line,
presumably with that number, to determine what arrangements had been
made to notify Foster's mother of the suicide.

"Are you telling the committee under oath that the first lady did not ask
you to do anything ... in regard to Mr. Foster's office?" Faircloth asked.

"That's correct. She did not," Burton said.

Second: As well as subpoenaing notes from a 1993 meeting between the
president's private lawyers and White House lawyers, the Whitewater
committee also demanded a Jan. 4, 1994, letter to the president from
Washington attorney James Hamilton.

Republican committee counsel Michael Chertoff called the letter an
"important" key to his investigation, reminding the senators that
Hamilton "was the attorney who represented Mr. Foster" and Foster's
widow.

The White House surrendered the letter, which conveyed legal and
political advice and Hamilton's poor opinion of the media, but no
evidence of any wrongdoing. It in fact bolstered Clinton's case. "The
White House must let Justice do its investigation without interference,"
Hamilton wrote.

Third: Chertoff and his staff last week demanded to know more about a
1993 letter from David Kendall, the Clintons' personal lawyer, that
accompanied Kendall's return of three "file folders" on Whitewater
matters to the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, where Mrs. Clinton and
Foster once worked.

"That's a smoking gun," D'Amato asserted last week, figuring that the
Clintons or their aides removed the files from Foster's office and gave
them to Kendall.

But Kendall, under oath, said he got the files not from Foster's office but
from Webster Hubbell, the former associate attorney general. Hubbell
had informed the committee months ago that the files came from his
basement, stored there with other records of Clinton's 1992 presidential
campaign. And the files, even GOP aides acknowledged, contained no
surprises.

"There goes the smoking gun," Sarbanes said.



    It's beginning to get even more interesting for this administration. 
    Apparently Nightline had a rather critical program last night about the
    whole affair and particularly Hillary's involvement.  Even Peter
    Jennings had a critical piece on the evening news.
    
    Perhaps now that this is getting the attention it deserves we may be
    able to get the real facts of this.
    
    I wonder how long it will take for the Democrats to offer up Hillary as
    the sacrificial lamb on this in order to try and keep Slick clean?
    

    Lamb dressed as wolf.  There's a novel turn.

    
      The WH is trying to cut a deal with D'Amato.  As I suspected,
     they've been advised that they probably will lose if they defy
     a Congressional subpoena.  And apparently, all the notes reveal
     is that Hillary was indeed more active at Rose than she said in
     Whitewater matters.  Again, she wasn't under oath when she said
     she wasn't involved, so there's no legal problem yet.  The admin
     has botched things politically however, by trying to withhold
     the documents.  It sure makes them look bad.
    
      bb

    Rocush:
    
    I caught the tail-end of Nightline, and I came away with the 
    notion the the fair Hillary is going to wind up in deep doo!!
    
    Apparently her aide (Ms. Thomas) who has testified, "I don't
    recall, I don't really remember" ad nauseum is known for taking copious
    notes, so Thomas's sudden memory problems is raising a lot of eye-
    brows among the WH watchers.
    
    Hillary has a LOT invested in seeing Sliq re-elected; she may need
    him to pardon her!!
    
    

    what better way at being a crook than to watch one firsthand in
    action...all the circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing is there, now
    they'll looking for that smoking gun...

    Coverup Snarf.

    
      The White House caved.  The will provide the documents, but of
     course not the "missing" time records Hillary submitted at Rose.
    
      They would have lost, I bet, though we won't find out now.  It is
     hard to imagine the SCOTUS upholding privilege in this sort of
     situation so soon after Watergate.
    
      I suspect, however, the lawyers' notes will only further muddy
     the waters.  I doubt there's a smoking gun.
    
      bb

    .298> Hillary has a LOT invested in seeing Sliq re-elected; she may
        > need him to pardon her!!
    
    By can Ol' Slickness pardon his own butt that is also dangling in the
    wind a bit here?
    
    	Skip

                  <<< Note 26.302 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH >>>

>    By can Ol' Slickness pardon his own butt that is also dangling in the
>    wind a bit here?
 
	Technically, yes. This was the subject of much discussion in
	1974. Nixon could have burned the tapes, pardoned himself,
	resigned and flipped everyone the bird on his way out of town.

	In fact, I think I would have had a lot more respect for him
	if he chosen this course of action.

Jim

    I don't think Lady Bird would have liked being flipped by Nixon.

    Eeeeeeuuuuuuuuwwww Colin, Lady Bird and Tricky Dick.....that image
    boggles the mind :-)
    
    

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Whitewater Committee issued another round
    of subpoenas on Thursday, seeking documents related to the failed real 
    estate venture that has plagued President Clinton for several years.
    
    U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-New York, chairman of the committee,
    announced the issuance of 16 subpoenas. They were served on both banking 
    institutions and people, including Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker and 
    James and Susan McDougal, who are all under federal indictment for their 
    role in the failure of a savings and loan involved in the Whitewater deal. 
    "The committee is now moving into the Arkansas phase of its investigation,"
    D'Amato said in a written statement. "We will continue to gather the 
    relevant facts. We will be fair, thorough and impartial."
    
    Tucker and the McDougals are charged in a 21-count federal indictment
    with conducting fraudulent transactions involving $3 million in loans from 
    the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, which the McDougals owned, and from
    Capital Management Services, Inc., owned by former Arkansas Municipal
    Judge David Hale. Hale pleaded guilty in March to two felony counts of 
    fraud. The Whitewater committee contends the White House has withheld
    documents in the congressional probe, which is seeking to determine the 
    role of President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed venture.
    
    Just last week, the White House turned over 12 pages of notes taken
    November 5, 1993 by a former aide to President Clinton, avoiding a 
    potentially embarrassing court battle with the Senate.
    
    On Thursday, D'Amato said subpoenas were issued this week for:
    
         -Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker 
         -James McDougal, former chairman of Madison Guaranty and part owner
          of Whitewater Development Corp. 
         -Susan McDougal, also part owner of Whitewater Development 
         -Christopher Wade, Whitewater Development real estate agent 
         -Loretta Lynch, staff member of the 1992 Clinton presidential
          campaign assigned to Whitewater issues 
         -Jack Palladino, private investigator retained by the 1992 campaign 
         -First Bank of Arkansas, lender to James McDougal 
         -Security Bank, provided loan to Clintons for Whitewater 
         -Lawrence Kuca, former director of Madison Financial Corp. 
         -Arkansas Public Service Commission 
         -National Association of Securities Dealers 
         -Stephen Smith, former business partner of James McDougal and Tucker 
         -Eugene Fitzhugh, former associate of Hale in Capital Management 
         -Dr. E. Russell Webb, former partner in Ozark Air Services, Inc. 
         -Robert Palmer, former real estate appraiser for Madison Guaranty 
         -Charles Matthews, former associate of Hale in Capital Management 
    
    D'Amato and Senator Paul Sarbanes, D-Maryland, the ranking Democratic
    member of the Whitewater Committee, approved the issuance of each subpoena.
    
    In late October, the Whitewater Committee issued 49 subpoenas, including 
    for the White House and the president and Mrs. Clinton.
    
    

 ZZ    -Robert Palmer, former real estate appraiser for Madison Guaranty 
    
    I thought he was the owner of Mostek at the time!

 No, he was making videos!

    This seems like a colossal waste of tax payer's money to me.

    So what?  We want to crucify the president!

    You are trying to make a demi diety out of clinton?  Not only a waste
    of taxpayer's money but a waste of nails if you ask me.
    
    

    Yeah but you see we have to Meg cuz there are still some Kennedy bumb
    kissers in this country who still think the democrat party of today is
    the same beast that supposedly pulled us out of the depression and
    therefore we have to resort to dragging our beloved president and Evita
    through the mud.  That's politics!  Fun huh?

| <<< Note 26.310 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| So what?  We want to crucify the president!

	Jack, you should know that crucifications are bad..... 

| <<< Note 26.312 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Yeah but you see we have to Meg cuz there are still some Kennedy bumb kissers 
| in this country who still think the democrat party of today is the same beast 
| that supposedly pulled us out of the depression 

	Gee....even Kennedy doesn't believe that. 

| therefore we have to resort to dragging our beloved president and Evita
| through the mud.  

	Madonna will be dragging Evita through the mud later this year. She is
STARRING in the movie, ya know. :-)


Glen

 ZZ     Gee....even Kennedy doesn't believe that. 
    
    Yes I know but unfortunately stupid, uninformed Mrs. Dougherty from
    Dorchester DOES believe it.  And frankly, until these people are
    finally too old to get out of bed they are still going to live in the
    depression years.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, you based everything on 1 person???? wow....

    Washington: WHITEWATER ENTERS THE ARKANSAS PHASE: 
    
    Embattled Whitewater principals Jim Guy Tucker and James McDougal received 
    a bit of coal in their stockings from Senator Alfonse D'Amato. The two are 
    part of a crowd of sixteen who received subpoenas from the Whitewater
    committee chairman for documents concerning Madison Guaranty Savings and 
    Loan. Arkansas Governor Tucker, along with James and Susan McDougal, are 
    already under federal indictment for their roles in the
    failure of the savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater
    controversy. "The committee is now moving into the
    Arkansas phase of its investigation," D'Amato wrote in issuing the
    subpoenas. "We will continue to gather the relevant
    facts. We will be fair, thorough and impartial." Fairness was a concern
    to McDougal, who said he would be happy to
    appear before the panel and take a lie detector test, but wants D'Amato
    to do the same. He challenged the Senator to
    "take a lie detector test concerning his family connections with the
    Mafia." A D'Amato spokesman would only say that
    the senator "continues to be committed to getting the facts and finding
    the truth."
    
    

    
    re: .313
    
    > Jack, you should know that crucifications are bad.....
    

	My shadow's back...... 

    Glen:
    
    It was an indictment on South Boston Irish over 50 years of age!

    
    re: .319
    
    Stuff it!!!
    
    

    I see that the new year didn't change your love affair.

| <<< Note 26.321 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>

| Stuff it!!!


	Later.....

| I see that the new year didn't change your love affair.


	Doc... this is the kind of love that makes Country music what it is
today! :-)

    
    re: .323
    
    But.. but Gleny Poo don't do that!!! He said so himself!!!
    

| <<< Note 26.325 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>


| But.. but Gleny Poo don't do that!!! He said so himself!!!

	I don't get stuffed..... but I do stuff it

    
    >I don't get stuffed..... but I do stuff it
    
    
    
    
    You just don't swallow... right??

    
    	Something stuck in your throat, Deb?
    

| <<< Note 26.327 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>

| You just don't swallow... right??

	Right. Did I tell you that I'm getting my Uvula out? 

    
    >Right. Did I tell you that I'm getting my Uvula out?
    
    Why?? Learn to use it and you can tell your buddies it's a French
    Tickler....

| <<< Note 26.331 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot." >>>


| Why?? 

	Cuz due to my alergies, it seems to expand quite a bit so that it
touches my tongue. Not good. With it gone, life will be much simpler.

| Learn to use it and you can tell your buddies it's a French Tickler....

	It gags everytime I try something like that. ;-)

    
    guys....jeez....%*}

    Mr. Sadin missed a semi evyl snarf!

    
    	ack...how dreadful....:)
    
    

Whitewater panel takes stock of its progress


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service 

WASHINGTON (Jan 21, 1996 10:21 a.m. EST) - The Senate
Whitewater Committee takes stock this week of an investigation that has
raised more questions than it has answered after months of sometimes
conflicting testimony, a blizzard of documents and an occasional
bombshell.

The inquiry has plodded through 29 hearings and five public meetings,
struggling to pry information from faulty memories and reconstruct
events back to more than a decade ago.

In a status report to be provided to the Senate this week, the committee
is not expected to be able to offer any definitive conclusions about the
affair that has dogged President Clinton and the first lady, Hillary
Rodham Clinton.

What does seem clear is that the committee will not be able to wrap up
its work by Feb. 29 as the resolution that brought it into being said it
should try to do.

That means its politically charged investigation will continue further
into the presidential election year and will need more money beyond the
original $950,000 authorization.

Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato, a New York Republican, has
declined to say how long he believes the investigation will continue. He
blames the slow pace on White House foot-dragging in providing
information and on the need to avoid complicating a separate criminal
investigation by Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr.

The affair stems from the Clintons' connections with an Arkansas
savings and loan institution back in the 1980s. However, much of the
inquiry has focused on what has seemed to be panicky or unexplained
actions by the Clintons and White House officials in Washington.

The Clintons were partners with the head of the Madison Guaranty
savings and loan, James McDougal and his wife, in a money-losing
vacation land development called Whitewater.

One question is whether federally insured depositors' funds were
funneled into Whitewater before Madison collapsed -- and if they were,
whether the Clintons knew.

Also at issue is work that Mrs. Clinton did for Madison while she was a
partner in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, especially any work on
what regulators have called a "sham" real estate transaction.

Mrs. Clinton has said her work for Madison was minimal. She discussed
her work and her investments with reporters last year at what has
become known as the pink press conference because of the color of her
suit.

But the first lady has become more controversial.

In early January details of her legal billings to Madison that had been
sought by investigative agencies for two years were discovered by a
White House aide, Carolyn Huber.

Last week Huber -- who worked for Clinton when he was governor of
Arkansas -- dropped a bombshell.

She said she had first seen the missing documents last August on a table
in a room in the White House residential quarters near Mrs. Clinton's
office.

She assumed they were left there for her to file and took them to her
office where they lay in a box until she found them on Jan. 4 and realized
what they were.

Both President and Mrs. Clinton said they did not know how the
documents got on the table. Mrs. Clinton, who is also at the center of a
House inquiry into the firing of the White House travel office staff,
complains she is a victim of partisan politics.

D'Amato, who also chairs front-runner Sen. Bob Dole's campaign for
the Republican presidential nomination, said he would pursue the
documents mystery. He said the committee might send written questions
to the Clintons and "the door is open" to them to come forward and give
information.

The committee has spent many hours seeking to reconstruct White
House actions and a flurry of phone calls, some involving Mrs. Clinton,
following the suicide of Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster in July 1993. But
its efforts have been inconclusive and key witnesses have been unable to
remember.

Republican critics have voiced frustration at what they say is deliberate
forgetfulness and at conflicting testimony about whether documents
were removed from Foster's office.

Earlier a constitutional confrontation appeared imminent as the Senate
voted to go to court for enforcement of a subpoena for the notes of a
Nov. 5, 1993, meeting on Whitewater between White House and Clinton
lawyers.

The White House backed down and the committee got the notes -- but
no smoking gun. Participants denied wrongdoing.

The parade of witnesses continues this week with testimony from
Arkansas savings and loan regulators and others.

       What a colossal waste of time and money.

    
    	it's run by the govt, what did you expect...?
    
    

    hmmm, so after all that fuss, the investigative panel can't reach any
    definitive conclusions.  They should have asked soapboxers...there's
    no shortage of people who conclusively know all sorts of things about
    um...
    
    just teasing, folks - I have *no* doubt that your worst fears will
    continue to be aired here ;-).
    
    DougO

    Youz people still don't get it.  What Hillary may or may not have done
    is in fact a federal issue; but we all know the Senate has no business
    in dealing with low rent Hillary.  Hillary should be dealt with in the
    federal courts as any other potential thief would be.  Let the courts
    deal with it...who cares. 
    
    The purpose of this whole exercise is to erode Bill's chances of
    getting re-elected....why lie?  There are plenty of stupid people out
    there who can still be swayed.  Simpleton's like good ole Mrs.
    Dougherty from the Irish mecca of South Boston who have been voting
    fatboy into the Senate all her life.  Gullible, foolish sheep.  Yes,
    there sure are plenty of them out there....therefore, it is the typical
    duty of an insider like D'Amato to use the system in any way possible.
    
    Hillary Clinton???  Senate Hearings???!!  You've got to be kidding me!
    

    $30 million so far.  

	Jack, you never cease to amaze me. Still using the Mrs. Dougherty from
South Boston routine? 

Though I think that our president and her husband are complete slimeballs, 
I think that going after Hillary shows that this investigation is going
nowhere. Stop spending taxpayer money on this witch hunt. Let the American 
people know all the facts, and I do mean all, and then this duo will be gone
after the next election. This hunt is looking stupid and will only favor 
Clinton's reelection.

 Agreed.





 Jim 

    Glen:
    
    When I was down in Framingham last year in that den of iniquity they
    called a rally for Kennedy and Clinton, I took a look around me and
    felt sincere and absolute pity for these people...I really did.  The
    rally was full....FULL to the hilt of Mrs. Dougherty types.  I guess I
    always suspected they were out there but really had to be there to
    catch the full experience.  Now Mrs. Dougherty will probably be in a
    rest home soon and will never realize the stagnation and damage she did
    to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Hopefully, we will recover
    anyways!
    
    -Jack
         

ZZ    In other words,  Whitewater hearings are a publicly funded witch hunt
ZZ    designed to persuade the stupid.
    
    EXACTLY!!!  And I agree the whole thing is a waste as far as the Senate
    goes.  But again, defrauding the Federal Depositers Insurance Corp., or
    the like is a felony and I don't think he or she should be let off the
    hook.  But I do think it is a matter for the FBI and the courts, not
    D'Amato.  
    
    As far as Forbes goes, he fired a secretary one year before her
    retirement so he will be dealing with the nosey muck-e-mucks over that
    one!
    
    -Jack

RE: 26.340 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

> The purpose of this whole exercise is to erode Bill's chances of getting 
> re-elected....why lie?  There are plenty of stupid people out there who 
> can still be swayed. 


In other words,  Whitewater hearings are a publicly funded witch hunt
designed to persuade the stupid.

Of course,  if you are not stupid,  and you read papers beyond the Union
Leader,  you probably know that one of the major Republican candidates
invested one dollar in a partnership that paid out $650,000 several years
later.  Hillary should take investing lessons.  And you probably also know
about the ADM sale of a Florida condo to another major candidate,  for
rather less than independent estimates of market value.  Wonder if a
Republican gets elected President and the House goes Democratic (which
might well happen) if there would be any interest in digging into the new
President's past at the level of detail that the Clinton's past has been
dug into.  About the only major candidate that is above risk to such
searching is Forbes.


Phil

> The purpose of this whole exercise is to erode Bill's chances of getting 
> re-elected....why lie?  There are plenty of stupid people out there who 
> can still be swayed. 

Oh yes... that's it. I guess then the dems are in on it as well, since 
the congress when under dem control had a hearing as well (at least, I
think they did...)

Also, the dems appointed a special prosecuter (2 of 'em, right) on this
case... How many people so far have gone to jail over what has been
uncovered? At least 1 I can think of (Hubble) and other I know have
been charged w/ committing crimes.

Oh yes... this is just to keep BilHill from getting elected again.

Open your eyes...

/scott

RE: 26.347 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

> As far as Forbes goes, he fired a secretary..

So?  That may be used to make him look bad,  but you can't hold five years
of hearings on it.  


Phil

| <<< Note 26.345 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

	Jack, thanks for the laugh. I'm sure they all appreciated that you felt 
sorry for them. You should have told them right then and there.....

	I don't suppose that they could just be people who believe in him? That
they aren't all sorry assed individuals? Nah..... it can't be that way....when
you're involved.



Glen

    Glen, I grew up in Framingham.  Losers...every one of them!
    
 ZZ   Jack, thanks for the laugh. I'm sure they all appreciated that you felt 
 ZZ   sorry for them. You should have told them right then and there.....
    
    I did Glen.  Remember?  I dressed up as a nerd with coke glasses,
    toilet paper stuck to the bottom of my shoes, short dress pants, white
    socks, black shoes, safety pin on broken zipper, and short sleeve
    shirt.  Held up a sign that said, "Clinton in 96."  
    
    I don't know how much more overt I could have gotten Glen!
    
    -Jack

    
    	So I guessed you ditched the sign and showed up for work as
    	usual, right?
    

    Shaun, I came back to work to be greated by George Rauh.  I was told I
    was in trouble in the box and upon looking, found I was being tried in
    box trial for lying about a ghost entry of some such!

    
    	Greated by George Rauh, eh?
    
    	And who greater to do that than George, I always say.
    

    Jack could be greated by any nimber of his betters :-).  Seriously
    though, Bill will win the election, a few more house and senate seats 
    will go to the repubs.  

    er, number, so sorry.

| <<< Note 26.351 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I dressed up as a nerd with coke glasses, toilet paper stuck to the bottom of 
| my shoes, short dress pants, white socks, black shoes, safety pin on broken 
| zipper, and short sleeve shirt.  

	Sounds a lot like what you wore to the CP dinner as well. :-)

| I don't know how much more overt I could have gotten Glen!
                             ^^^^^

	Put a c in front of it and you will have your answer.

 ZZ    Put a c in front of it and you will have your answer.
    
    Ouuu that was a cheap shot Glen!  Ouch!

    
    >Ouuu that was a cheap shot Glen!
    
    
    
    So.. Jack.. what's your point???

    I meant it was a cheap shot toward poor /John Covert!

    I'm convinced the democrat party per headcount eats more red meat than
    the republican party.

| <<< Note 26.362 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I'm convinced the democrat party per headcount eats more red meat than
| the republican party.

	Jack, considering the repubs have been eating the dems alive, I'm not
sure you're correct. :-)

    
    

>| <<< Note 26.362 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>| I'm convinced the democrat party per headcount eats more red meat than
>| the republican party.

>	Jack, considering the repubs have been eating the dems alive, I'm not
>sure you're correct. :-)

    Would dems be considered red meat?
    
    	Skip

| <<< Note 26.364 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing" >>>

| Would dems be considered red meat?

	With the exception of their necks, yes.

    
    {guffaw}
    

    
    
    RE.365
    
     >Would dems be considered red meat?
     
    
      >>With the exception of their necks, yes.
    
     I thought that you would have to have a backbone before you could be
    considered red meat!
    
    
     Dave
    

| <<< Note 26.367 by BSS::DSMITH "RATDOGS DON'T BITE" >>>


| I thought that you would have to have a backbone before you could be
| considered red meat!

	Dave, they have the backbone to keep running.... well, most of them...

    
    
    But the way the head dem keeps flopping around noone could accuse him
    of having a backbone!!!
    
    Dave

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	and one has to wonder what's on 'pril's mind....;*)
    
    jim

    Well, at least she doesn't have to deal with the 4 alarm fire in an
    insane asylum that's going on in _my_ head.


    WwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH!!

    
    And this is different than usual because...?
    

    
    	One less alarm than usual.
    

    
    The NY Post calculates that Whitewater witnesses have said that
    they "don't recall" or "don't remember" approx. 797 times thus far.
    
    This, of course, includes Hillary Rodham Clinton who is
    considered one of the smartest people in DC and a top lawyer.
    
    One is reminded of the following Nixon quote delivered to
    Dean, Erlichman, and Haldeman on Mrach 21, 1973....
    
    "Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove. .Be damned sure
     you say "I don't remember, ....I can't recall."

   .375  {gasp}  she's very smart, and a top lawyer, and yet she
	 doesn't have total recall??  how very damning.

    
    re: .376
    
    >and yet she doesn't have total recall?? 
    
    Don't matter....
    
    it bit Nixon in the ass, and will likewise bite those that are 
    memory-impaired...

    
>    Don't matter....
	
	it _should_ matter, when one is trying to assess whether or not
	someone is lying.

    Could somebody please enlighten me as to how this fabrication started
    Hillary Clinton is a top lawyer?

| <<< Note 26.379 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Could somebody please enlighten me as to how this fabrication started
| Hillary Clinton is a top lawyer?


	Bill hangs out under her?

    Thank you

    
    	Jack, if you'll buy that, you'll buy anything.
    

>        <<< Note 26.379 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Could somebody please enlighten me as to how this fabrication started
>    Hillary Clinton is a top lawyer?

	why do you assume it's a fabrication?  you have some evidence
	to the contrary, i suppose?

    
    Hey!!!! Any lawyer that can make a 100K in one swelled foop is okay by
    me!!!!
    

    You've got to wonder what yardstick is used to determine "the best
    lawyer" anyway. It's not like state lawyers have any head to head way
    of competing. Sounds like people you like = top lawyers.

    
    I've wondered what made people call  her a top lawyer. What specific
    cases has she won, what precedences has she set (lawyer wise). She was
    involved in the Watergate investigation, but beyond that, what from a
    lawyer point of view makes her so damned special?
    
    ed

    Lady Di:
    
    Simple deduction really.  Hillary Clinton in her illustrious career
    only took direct part in six jury court cases.  Secondly and much to
    the dismay of friends of Hillary everywhere, She DID NOT graduate in
    the top of her class at Yale.  They did not rate students in her
    program.  They got the grade letter "P" or "F".  In my book, this makes
    her an elitist without credentials.
    
    She sat on the board of directors for three companies.  Coincidently, 
    her husband also happened to be the governor.  Therefore, one can
    easily draw the conclusion she was put in this position through
    nepotism.  Why not?  If the wife of a governor were an attorney and 
    you were Cheif Executive Officer, you would be a fool not to put her on
    the board.  I thought that was very astute of them.
    
    So what we have here is an attorney who granted went to an Ivy League
    school...who is the wife of a governor.  Other than that...nothing!

    >> Sounds like people you like = top lawyers.

	yeah, no doubt it's something as simplistic as that.
	i know that's how _i'd_ determine it anyways.
	i like my lawyer, so i guess he must be a top lawyer.

	hunh?

    Well, Di, how DO they determine the top lawyers?

    prerequisite: had to be on the dream team or prosecution.

>    Well, Di, how DO they determine the top lawyers?

	i have no freakin' idea!  so it must be "people you like".

I have no idea (and no interest) in Hillary's top-lawyerness, but (as usual)
Our Jack's reasoning is lacking.

>    Simple deduction really.  Hillary Clinton in her illustrious career
>    only took direct part in six jury court cases.

Lots of lawyers don't deal with juries at all.  What kind of law did she
practice?

>                                                    Secondly and much to
>    the dismay of friends of Hillary everywhere, She DID NOT graduate in
>    the top of her class at Yale.  They did not rate students in her
>    program.  They got the grade letter "P" or "F".

She did not graduate in the top what?  1%?  10%?  50%?  90%?  And class rank
is not necessarily indicative of success in the real world.

    >	i have no freakin' idea!  
    
     but popularity is clearly not a factor, no sirree bob.

    Okay Gerald, then educate me.  What makes Hillary a top lawyer?  The
    very things I mention, like her being at the top of her class, is what
    the Hillary lovers seem to use most to show her in a positive light. 
    But please, by all means, enlighten us.
    
    

    As if Gerald has twenty years to spare.

    
      A friend from Hahvid LS tells me the top of the class became
     professors and judges, had lots of power, solved knotty legal
     problems, and made squat.  The ones that just squeaked through
     all got to be millionaires.
    
      Hillary at Rose specialized in loss of memory, a useful habit.
    
      bb

    
>     but popularity is clearly not a factor, no sirree bob.

	i would never make that assumption.  nor would i assume
	that that's the deciding factor, as you seem to have by
	saying "people you like = top lawyers".

>    Okay Gerald, then educate me.  What makes Hillary a top lawyer?

I said I don't know or care whether she's a top lawyer.  The term's
pretty meaningless.  How about naming a "top programmer?"

    Because Gerald, you arbitrarily poke your head in here and ridicule my 
    reasoning.  If you don't care, then fine but why do you bother getting
    involved?

	Whitewater snarf

	Jack, I must admit....when you speak, adjectives flow! :-)

   .399  yes, heaven forbid that a truly objective analysis of your
	 reasoning should muddy the waters.

re .399:

I don't care about Hillary's credentials.  I do care about poor reasoning.
HTH, NNTTM, ABA, JD, LLB.

    >	i would never make that assumption.  nor would i assume
    >	that that's the deciding factor, 
    
     It seems to be pretty key in most such nebulous rankings.

    Well, that's 10 or so replies wasted.  Now if somebody could please
    answer my question as to why Hillary should be considered a top
    lawyer...
    
    

    Maybe top translates to "well known." Indeed, she is that.

Whyncha ask the people who say she's a top lawyer?

    I'm testing the waters here.  There is a lot of hoy paloy going on
    regarding Hillary and how intelligent she is...how she is a brilliant
    attorney.  The bottom line is that John Q. Public has very little idea
    as to what is going on, who is who, or where it's happening.  I would
    venture to say the average person would be hard pressed to be able to
    locate Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, or Vietnam on a map.  I find this to
    be disturbing and yet it is completely understanding how the electorate
    would swallow hook line and sinker the belief that Hillary is a top
    lawyer.  
    
    The fact that I'm not getting an answer here from anybody is caused by
    either a lack of caring or a lack of knowledge.  
    
    GLEN!  Why is Hillary a top lawyer?  Didn't think I'd get a real answer
    out of you...but the fact is you just melt over her existence don't
    you???

    
    <----
    
    Actually his melting is done over Slick...
    

    
    {boggle}
    

| <<< Note 26.408 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| but the fact is you just melt over her existence don't you???

	Jack, you're always trying to get a rise out of me. Are you trying to
tell me something?

| <<< Note 26.409 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Too many politicians, not enough warriors." >>>


| Actually his melting is done over Slick...

	Oil can be fun

    
			  (__)
                          (@@)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  
                 *  ||W---||   <boggle> 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    Jack,
    
    I believe Hillary was once on a list of the "100 most influencial
    lawyers in the US" (or some such list).  The list may have been
    generated by NOW or by the ABA for all I know (two answers that would
    leave me with very different impressions).  Anyone have a better
    memory of this?
    
    Greg
    

    We've never before had a lawyer First Lady, which all by itself
    probably guarantees her a place on the 100 most influential list.

    That list is probably about as much of a sham as People Magazines's
    most respected People edition.
    
    -Jack

    >>  That list is probably about as much of a sham as People Magazines'
    >> most respected People edition.
    
    combine the two and get "People Magazine's most respected top 100 first
    lady lawyers".
    
    two bits sez Hillary winds up as #101...

    .396 Prolly accurate enough :-)
    
    Hillary was smart enough to learn:
    
    
    "When in doubt.......
    Forget about it......" :-)
    
    Hope she isn't counting on her lawyering skills to earn a living
    once she leaves the White House (asumming she does not have to go
    to jail first) ;-)
    

    Received these on Savoynet tonight.  They scan pretty well, if you know
    the tune. 
    
    Written with apologies to Gilbert, I assume.
             
    *	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
    
In a seat on a dais a mean little $h!t
	Sang 'Water, Whitewater, Whitewater!'
And I said to him, 'Fonsy-boy, why do you sit
	Singing 'Water, Whitewater, Whitewater?'
'Is it meanness of intellect, Alfonse?' I cried,
'Or an unfulfilled love affair deep down inside?'
With a wink from his yellowing eye, he replied,
	'Oh, water, Whitewater, Whitewater!'

He poked at his chest as he sat on that bench
	Singing 'Water, Whitewater, Whitewater!'
And I soon was aware of one terrible stench,
	Oh, Water, Whitewater, Whitewater.
'I must look at the crimes of another', he sighed.
'Oh, you're looking afresh at your brother!' I cried.
With a shake of his bald little head, he replied,
	"Oh water, Whitewater, Whitewater!'

So I told him 'You know that you stick in my craw'
	Singing 'Water, Whitewater, Whitewater!'
'You're wasting my taxes to probe Arkansas'
	Oh, water, Whitewater, Whitewater.
He croaked and he choked as he got in his car.
Then he drove himself home to his old abattoir.
And effluvia rose from his sty to a star.
	Oh water, Whitewater, Whitewater.

Now I hope very much that our President Bill's
	Not in water, hot water, Whitewater,
But all that I hear from this mean little pill
	Is more water, (his water?), Whitewater!
And as billions still starve, and more troubles ensue, 
He spends millions to poke for a twelve year old clue!
And he'll keep up this witch hunt until he turns blue---
	Oh, water, Whitewater, Whitewater! 
	


In the spirit of equal time and all that, herewith is
an encore verse for Tom's epic:


  Now I feel just as sure as I'm sure that my name
     Isn't water, Whitewater, Whitewater,
  That the Democrats have but themselves to blame
     Over water, Whitewater, Whitewater.
  Those who live by the sword shall inherit its fate;
  Perhaps after it's done, we can have a clean slate.
  Just consider it payback for old Watergate...
     This water, Whitewater, Whitewater.

    

    Reproduced without permission....
    Obtained from the internet..
   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Times
March  5, 1996


   The  latest  development  in  the Whitewater scandal perfectly reflects
the cynically  political,  manipulative and obstructionist behavior the Clinton
administration  -  and  its  Democratic  water  carriers  in the Senate who
refused  to  permit a vote last week on extending the mandate of the Senate
Whitewater Committee - have exhibited throughout the investigation. It also
makes clear that the Democratic Senators who promise to block a vote again, when
committee chairman Alfonse D'Amato renews his efforts today, have very good
reason to fear a continued inquiry into their president and his White House.

   On  Friday night, just in time to miss the prime time news, senior White
House  adviser Bruce Lindsey turned over to the Senate Whitewater committee
notes  he  had  taken at a Nov. 5, 1993, strategy session attended by White
House  counsel and Bill and Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer. Readers will
recall that that was the meeting where former Associate White House Counsel
William  H. Kennedy III took notes, including "Vacuum Rose Law files - WWDC
docs;  documents  never  know  go  out";  and that the White House advanced
specious claims of attorney-client privilege, and even threatened to invoke
executive privilege, to keep those notes and any information about what was said
at the meeting from the Whitewater committee.

   In  the  end,  of  course, the notes were released and meeting participants
were required  to  discuss  what  went  on.  Now,  Mr. Lindsey was at that
meeting, and  he testified about it once the privilege claims were laughed off
the Senate floor. But he insisted that he'd taken no notes - or rather, in  the 
careful wording  every Clinton administration witness has used in discussing 
these matters,  Mr. Lindsey insisted he had no recollection of taking  any
"specific" notes. Well, lo and behold, some notes taken at that meeting  in  his
handwriting  materialized  in the office of Mr. Lindsey's lawyer, Allen Snyder.

   Curious,  isn't  it,  that  Mr. Lindsey had turned the notes over to his
personal  attorney,  rather  than  to the White House officials detailed to
collect Whitewater documents in response to Senate requests. Might that, as well
as  Mr. Lindsey's convenient failure to recall taking notes, have had something
to  do with the explosive nature of the comments at the meeting, and  with  the
administration's plan to invoke attorney-client privilege to keep it all under
wraps?

   Curious,  too, that though Mr. Snyder found the notes last Wednesday, he
didn't  get  them  to the committee until Friday night. Might that have had
something  to  do  with  the  fact  that  Thursday  was  the day the Senate
Whitewater  committee  went out of business and lost its power to subpoena? Or
with  the  fact  that  Thursday  was the day committee chairman Alfonse D'Amato
was due to ask Senate Democrats (in vain as it turned out) to vote on  an
extension  of  the  committee's mandate? Mr. Snyder has offered the unbelievably
lame excuse that he had to go out of town on Thursday (one can only wonder - did
he take his secretary, his paralegals, his associates and his fax machine with
him?).

   Mr.  D'Amato has asked Whitewater Committee counsel to determine whether Mr.
Lindsey  is  in  contempt  of Congress - and to do the same for Deputy White
House  Chief  of  Staff Harold Ickes, former communications director Mark
Gearan  and  White  House  staffer  Michael Waldman, all of whom very belatedly
"discovered"  notes  about meetings of a key Whitewater response group  in  the
White House. Of course, it would prove rather difficult for Whitewater
Committee  counsel  to  pursue  the  matter  if  there  were no Whitewater
Committee.  Which explains why the Clintons and their staff and particularly
their  allies in the Senate are so eager to put the committee quietly  to  sleep
-  all the while crying politics at Republican senators trying to peer through
the evasions, the dishonesty and the obstruction.

  

                              
    Reproduced without permission....
    Obtained from the internet
    
    
    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   WASHINGTON (AP 3/6) -- The Senate argued sharply Wednesday over a 
Republican proposal to extend indefinitely its Whitewater investigation, 
a potential political embarrassment for the Clintons well into the 
election year. 

   The Senate Whitewater Committee's authority expired last Thursday, and 
its string of hearings was replaced by hours of debate on the Senate 
floor as minority Democrats made good on their threat to block a vote on 
the proposal. 

   Democrats have fiercely resisted an open-ended extension, accusing the 
Republicans of trying to finance a politically motivated investigation 
deep into the presidential campaign season. 

   The Republicans, who need 60 votes to proceed to a vote on the 
resolution, insist they're just trying to uncover the facts. The 
Republican-Democratic split is 53-47. 

   Much of the sharply partisan rhetoric focused on President Clinton and 
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who were partners in the Whitewater real estate 
venture with James McDougal, the owner of a failed Arkansas savings and 
loan. The S&L, Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, used Mrs. Clinton's law 
firm for legal work. 

   ``You cannot count on the president and the first lady having the full 
trust and confidence of the American people,'' Senate Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said during the debate. 

   Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California complained that 
Republicans had made ``personal attacks'' on Mrs. Clinton that bordered 
on being ``unpatriotic.'' 

   ``What's more important for our people, standing up and berating the 
president and first lady on something that happened years and years ago ..
 or doing the work of the United States Senate,'' Boxer said. ``I am 
clearly distraught that this is the priority of the United States Senate.
'' 

   McDougal and his ex-wife, Susan, are on trial in Little Rock, Ark., 
with Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker for allegedly lying about how nearly $3 
million in loans from federally backed lending companies would be used. 
The three face stiff prison terms and millions of dollars in fines if 
convicted. 

   On Tuesday, the question of whether the president should testify in 
person or on videotape overshadowed jury selection at the Whitewater 
trial. 

   The Republicans also continued to berate White House aides for their 
belated release of Whitewater documents -- including Mrs. Clinton's legal 
billing records -- to the special Senate committee. 

   Getting Whitewater information from the White House ``is like eating 
ice cream with a knitting needle,'' lamented Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C. 
``A little bit here and a little bit there, but never enough to satisfy.
'' 

   Added Faircloth: ``Nothing would clear the name of the Clintons 
quicker than to bring forth all of the facts, bring the people in from 
Little Rock and conclude the hearings.'' 

   The Democrats wouldn't have blocked a vote on extending the inquiry if 
there were nothing to hide, he said. 

   The Democrats have offered a compromise that would extend the 
investigation for five weeks only and provide an additional $185,000, 
compared with the open-ended extension and additional $600,000 in the GOP 
resolution. 

   Under Senate rules, a vote on the resolution could not occur before 
Friday. 

>Washington Times
>March  5, 1996
>
>   The  latest  development  in  the Whitewater scandal perfectly reflects
>the cynically  political,  manipulative and obstructionist behavior the Clinton

That's right. And we all know that D'Amato, Campaign chairman for Dull,
has no political motives at all. 

    D'Amato is as pure as the driven snow.

    Dems da berries, you know. The memories of October Surprise and
    Iran/Contra are still fresh in the minds of republicans. Good for the
    goose...

re: good for the goose

Ya gotta like this reasoning: The Dims did it. It was bad. Now we're
gonna do it.

TTom

    So Clinton should get a free ride just because if the truth comes out
    it may be advantageous to the republicans? Why can't we just find out
    the truth and let the chips fall where they may? Why does this have to
    be politicized? When our leaders commit crimes, they ought not get away
    with them just because they hold office. Or do you disagree? Do you
    think that some people ought to be above the law just because enforcing
    the law on them might make them uncomfortable or provide the opposition
    party political leverage?

No free ride. 

I'm support the truth and chips theory. 

It doesn't have to be but as long politicians are involved it will be
politicized. D'Amato could do his part to limit this. Clinton certainly
contributes to this, as well. Washington Times also contributes to this.

You do the crime you should do the time.

No one should be above the law. Not Reagan. Not Bush. Not Clinton.

TTom

re: .426

	I agree, nobody should be above the law!

	However, I don't believe politicians are capable of doing anything
without pliticizing it.  If politicians are involved, then it will be political.
Get the independent counsel in and the politicians out.  I.E.  let D'Amato go
melt snow and get out of the way.

>It doesn't have to be but as long politicians are involved it will be
>politicized. D'Amato could do his part to limit this. 
    
    How could he do this without impairing the ability of the committee to
    investigate the issue? Asked another way, what could he have done that
    he didn't do and what should he not have done that he did do?
    
    >Clinton certainly contributes to this, as well. 
    
     I think Clinton's the real force behind the politicization. I think
    that Clinton _knows_ there are very real skeletons on the closet, which
    is why he's made every effort to A) conceal the contents of the closet,
    B) insist that those who want to look into the closet only want to do so
    for political purposes.
    
     My answer to the proposition that there's no real wrongdoing, that
    this is a trumped up charge, a political ploy is that there is no
    quicker resolution to such a thing than a complete and open issuance of
    the facts requested by the investigators. If there is nothing in the
    closet, letting investigators have a peek is not a harmful action, and
    IF it's nothing more than smear politics it becomes obvious to everyone
    involved _including voters_. The proverbial backfire, as it were.
    
     It seems that Clinton has consistently taken steps to prolong this
    line of inquiry. This could be because A) he really has something to
    hide, or B) he's waiting until just before the election to reveal an
    empty closet in the hopes that the political fallout will be
    unfavorable to his opponents or C) he's a bumbling idiot. I tend to
    doubt C due to the clever, coordinated way his administration has
    caused the facts to elude some very determined investigators. People
    aren't ever saying "there was no such document." They are saying "I
    have no recollection of such a document." Lawyer-speak. This is
    coordinated from the very top. Bill and Hill. The sheer number of
    coincidences of "oh, we _just_ found this document you asked for right
    after the statute of limitations expired/ability to subpoena expired"
    is cause for incredulity.

D'amato needs to take off one of his hats. Either step aside from leading
this investigation or take a leave from the Dull camp.

As long as he plays both roles, he has no credibitily.

I agree that Clinton has been a significant part of the problem and
continues on that course.

But the 'Pubs are now in a bad way in terms of the political timing. On
one hand, they might not want to quickly resolve this if that resolution
clears Clinton. On the other hand, they don't want it to go away afore
the election.

That is their politicization contribution.

TTom

>But the 'Pubs are now in a bad way in terms of the political timing. On
>one hand, they might not want to quickly resolve this if that resolution
>clears Clinton. 
    
    Wrong. They've _gotta_ get to the bottom of things before November. If
    they wait too long and he's clean, then they are in much worse shape
    than if they find out now that he's clean. If they find out now they
    have time to recover from the political fallout.

    re .-1:
    
    help me understand this oxymoron:
    
    clean <--------------> politician
    
    

>    Wrong. They've _gotta_ get to the bottom of things before November.

Unfortunately, they aint gonna make it, not at the rate that they're
going.

In any case, if'n they quickly conclude that Clinton didn't do anything
criminal then they have a major P.R. problem that they may not overcome.

The other semi-related problem in terms of timing they have is the
Special Prosecutor who seems to be making no public progress at getting
closer to Clinton. Chock that up to Clinton or whatever but the longer it
goes without his indictment the less the American public cares about it.

The American public already elected Clinton once with all of this mud all
over him. If'n all they're left with are innuendos, theories,
conspiracies, etc., it may come across as old news. It din't stop him
lasted time and it may not again.

TTom

    Republicans are counting on the idea that they can convince the
    country that there must be a skeleton in the closet if they are
    still looking for one.

    The Republicans (in one way or another) have looked for this
    skeleton for four years.  They could continue looking for it
    for another ten years without finding anything (and without
    clearing him, either.)

    At no point are the Republicans required to say "The Clintons
    are innocent."  If they never find anything to nail on the
    Clintons, they can always claim that evidence was destroyed
    (or that they KNEW the Clintons did something wrong, but
    simply couldn't prove it.)

    Nixon's camp fell apart badly within months (once people really
    started looking into the Watergate matter.)  The Clintons have
    held up for four years.
    
    Americans remember what it was like to see a President nailed.
    They had concrete proof and people did confess after awhile.
    (Not Nixon, of course, but he was pardoned.)
    
    After four years with no concrete proof of an indictable offense
    (and no one in the White House confessing), it looks more and more
    like a witch hunt.  (It barely gets a mention in the press anymore,
    and every time CNN brings up the Whitewater hearings, they seem to
    end with the statement that the Clintons are not being accused of
    anything.)
    
    Enough is enough.

>    ..., it looks more and more
>    like a witch hunt.  ...

I think this is the key.

Lacking any hard evidence, the voting public is only left with its
impression. 

Those that want to think he's guilty will think he's guilty. Those that
want to think he's not guilty will think he's not guilty.

The longer this drags on, IMHO, the more people will join the "who cares"
camp and use something else to make the decision about who to vote for.

TTom

    Course, Suzanne, you'd be the first to admit that during the 1st two
    years of this administration, the Democrats did NOTHING in their power
    to impede the investigation, stonewall the investigation, etc.  The
    last two year sunder Republican leadership, Congress has been able to
    dig a WHOLE lot further into the scandal, people have been indicted,
    resigned, jailed, disgraced, etc.  Course, that was all in the name of
    POLITICS!
    
    Yeah, and I have a bridge I wann a sell you...

    The Republicans have only been in control for a little over a year.

    The Whitewater news has been a major yawn in the press since they
    took over.  

    If they don't find concrete proof against the Clintons (and the
    Republicans in general have been trying to find this proof for
    four years), it's pretty much a dead or dying issue.

    Enough is enough.

    Suzanne,
    
    The European press has been following Whitewater for 4 years.  Most of
    the breaking nuse in America has first been played out for months in
    their press.  When you go abroad, you hear so much about this President
    that the rest of the world thinks is such a joke they're amazed we
    haven't thrown him outta office yet, but then they realize that we did
    have Democrats in control of this country for over 40 years...
    
    "Enough is enough!"  Does that mean that the indictments, scandals,
    removal from power should stop at the feet of Bill/Hill because you
    perish the thought that your love couple would ever even "think" of
    doing a single dirty deed?  This is afterall the man who ran for
    President on the platform that "Character doesn't mean anything" and
    the woman who conducted "public" hearings about health care behind
    CLOSED DOORS, did not engage the then minority party, then blame said
    minority party for blocking the passage of natioalizing 7% of the GNP. 
    I happen to agree with you, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Bill/Hill leave already!

re: 431

Evidently, D'Amato agrees with you on the timing.

Yesterday, in arguing the motion to indefinitely extend the senate
investigation, D'Amato conceded that he'd be willing to end it in
mid-July, afore the political conventions.

Meanwhile, the Dims offered their compromhise from no way to how 'bout 5
or 6 weeks.

In any case, it looks like there will be a_end to it in the near future.
The question that looms still is what if'n they don't find anything on
Clinton?

TTom

    RE: .438  HALLR
    
    If the Republicans in general haven't been able to find something 
    to nail on the Clintons in four years, they are wasting our time
    and money with this witch hunt.
    
    Perhaps they finally realize this (per their new stance of agreeing
    to end it.)
    
    It's about <bleeping> time.

     It seems just a bit slanted to say that they've been trying for four
    years since no real investigations took place in congress until the
    republicans took office LAST YEAR. And the Clintons have been shredding
    documents and get witness statements perfected for the last 4 years
    (along with withholding the few remaining documents until someone else
    finds a copy elsewhere...) Tell you what. I'll do something and take
    a multi-year head start on sanitizing the evidence, and we'll see what
    you can prove in under a year.

    Suzanne:
    
    Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it.
    
    Ron

| <<< Note 26.442 by USAT05::HALLR "God loves even you!" >>>


| Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it.

	I would imagine it would. You see, shoes are curved for certain feet. A
right shoe on the left foot is a bad curve match. Thus, it hurts when the shoe
is on the other foot. Very astute of you, Ron. :-)

    .443
    
    Dapends on whether they're old shoes or new ones.  Useta be, you bought
    shoes, you got two shoes.  Not a right/left pair, just two shoes.  They
    were the same, not curved to fit specific feet.

	If I didn't know that you are the smartest person in here, I'd say you
were very old. :-)

    I'm not.

       I'm not.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    horse patooty!
    
    I saw it writ on the bafroom wall that you were older'n DIRT!
    
    	.bp
    		(who has a claim to fame as having watch the universe form
    		 in front of his barcalounger..)

	Dick, I know you aren't old. I just said if I didn't know you were so
smart, I'd think that. 

 Heck, Dick's so old, when he went to school they didn't have history!




 

    .447, .448
    
    I suggest you both sign up for Reading Comprehension 101.  I said I am
    not.  I didn't say WHAT I am not.

    
    	Yeah, they were WRITING text books instead of studying them.
    

  .450  i was just about to point that out too.

    
    	I knew what he meant, but I also believe that Bob and Glen
    	did what I would've done and picked on the portion of the
    	statement that was easier to use in a negative fashion.
    

	I guess seeing the mounds of knowledge you allow us all to see everyday
might have just made us think you aren't old. Cuz you're definitely smart!

    
    	What Glen meant to say was:
    
    	"Dick, your knowledge astounds me.  Howz about we get together
    	 some night and chew the fat?".
    

    Wow, I really do learn something new every day.
    
    Thanks to Binder.  8)

    RE: .441  Mark Levesque

    > Tell you what. I'll do something and take a multi-year head start 
    > on sanitizing the evidence, and we'll see what you can prove in 
    > under a year.

    The Republicans could spend the rest of their lives (and billions in
    taxpayer dollars) to try to pin something on the Clintons without
    ever resolving anything.

    While the formal investigation has only gone on for a year, they've
    had people digging, digging, digging and digging into every possible
    lead and public document for the past four years without being able
    to prove that the Clintons have done anything illegal.

    The Washington Post was able to break the Nixon administration's cover
    without a formal investigation in far less time than this.

    If there were any proof to be found about the Clintons, they would have
    found it by now.
    
    At some point, it's time to stop.  Sounds like the time is now.

	Suz...it's an election year. They have already wasted the tax payers
money trying to pin something on Clinton. So yes, it is time for them to stop.
But look for them to pick it up again when the election is over and Clinton
wins.


Glen

    >The Republicans could spend the rest of their lives (and billions in
    >taxpayer dollars) to try to pin something on the Clintons without
    >ever resolving anything.
    
     Then again, they could find evidence of willful wrongdoing tomorrow.
    Evidence that could lead to the current president and/or his wife spending 
    time in a federal penitentiary. I suppose that would just be politics,
    eh?
    
    >While the formal investigation has only gone on for a year, they've
    >had people digging, digging, digging and digging into every possible
    >lead and public document for the past four years without being able
    >to prove that the Clintons have done anything illegal.
    
     So what? I'm sure the "public" documents that have become "missing",
    key documents that detail real estate transactions, etc, give you no
    reason to question your pal Bill, but from what evidence remains
    coupled with the mysterious disappearances of other key documents it
    seems that a variety of improprieties were perpetrated by your fave
    couple. Now I say it seems because that's as much information as is
    available. You seek to deny investigators the ability to discover the
    truth one way or another. I seek only to allow the investigation to
    continue until all leads have been followed to their logical
    conclusions. One can only wonder why you'd rather not see this happen.
    "They've had time enough" is not a good enough answer. The Clintons
    have "had time enough" to obscure the truth. The investigators need
    "time enough" to unravel the truth. Whatever form that may take.
    
    >At some point, it's time to stop.  Sounds like the time is now.
    
     The point it's time to stop is when the investigation reaches a
    conclusion. That hasn't happened yet.

    The Post was able to do in the Nixon Administration only because Deep
    Throat kept telling them where to look at what to look for.  Nobody in
    a position to know has yet surfaced in the Whitewater investigations.
    The two aren't comparable in terms of 'time to crack the cover'.
    
    DougO

	Linda Chambers was helping out with Watergate?

    RE: .459  Mark Levesque

    >> The Republicans could spend the rest of their lives (and billions in
    >> taxpayer dollars) to try to pin something on the Clintons without
    >> ever resolving anything.
    
    > Then again, they could find evidence of willful wrongdoing tomorrow.

    Or tomorrow, or tomorrow. Or next year, or next century.  Or decades
    after Bill and Hillary grow old and die.

    Or they may just spend billions of our tax dollars looking and hoping.
    (Unless they just stop.)

    > You seek to deny investigators the ability to discover the
    > truth one way or another. I seek only to allow the investigation to
    > continue until all leads have been followed to their logical
    > conclusions. 

    I don't think the investigators are seeking the truth, actually.
    I think they are looking for any possible way to hang the Clintons,
    whether it's the truth or not.  It's a witch hunt, pure and simple.

    > One can only wonder why you'd rather not see this happen.

    See above.
                                   
    > "They've had time enough" is not a good enough answer. The Clintons
    > have "had time enough" to obscure the truth. The investigators need
    > "time enough" to unravel the truth. Whatever form that may take.
               
    The investigators need 'time enough' to put their doings in the news
    at the height of the presidential election campaign.  :/

    > The point it's time to stop is when the investigation reaches a
    > conclusion. That hasn't happened yet.

    At this point, I don't think a conclusion will ever be possible (unless
    they have to just stop at some point.)

    The Republicans in general would probably rather rip out their eyeballs
    and set fire to gasoline in their empty eye sockets than to say "The
    Clintons are cleared".  (I'm speaking figuratively, of course.)  :/

    If the Repubs and Democrats come to an agreement to end it or if the
    Democrats keep blocking the vote (or even if the investigation continues
    indefinitely with no solution possible) - it doesn't really matter.

    The CNN anchors almost roll their eyes when they report about the
    Whitewater investigation these days, and they end it with "The
    Clintons are not accused of any wrongdoing" almost every time.

    It's gone on too long to be shocking or meaningful anymore to most
    Americans.

    Suzanne:
    
    So the CNN anchors "roll theri eyes" when they report to
    Whitewater./..so what, it doesn't mean a thing what the CNN anchors
    do...
    
    
    Ron

    It's a tired story - that's the point.

    
    
    How many indictments has this investigation yielded?
    
    
    How many guilty pleas?
    
    
    signed,
    
    an old friend
    
    
    
    
    
      an ex y How many guilt 

    .466
    
    Okay, this is enuf....that fatboy Mikey would use my account and call
    my fellow boxers names, on top of that, making sense from my account
    which I could neva do, that's gonna be goin' too far!!!
    
    :-)

    Well, Jimmy Carter had the last administration to make it through
    without indictments of some sort, so nothing is much of a surprise
    anymore.

    Whatever the Senate decides to do about the hearings is ok with me.
    I don't think their decision will make much of a difference overall.

    Suzanne:
    
    You need to take a refresher history course...unless you forgot about
    Bert Lance...course Billy wasn't much of an accept to his brother's
    administration, either.
    
    Ron

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

    RE: .468  HALLR
    
    > You need to take a refresher history course...unless you forgot about
    > Bert Lance...
    
    Ok, I stand corrected.  It seems to be 'business as usual' for U.S.
    Presidents in the past 24 years or so to have certain members of 
    their administrations indicted.
    
    Nothing is much of a surprise anymore, as I said.

    Like Israel, we have very deep divisions within our own country
    about the issues/controversies in this society.  Sometimes these
    differences result in violence inflicted by Americans to Americans.
    Other times, these differences result in a war of words which only
    deepens the divisions between Americans.
    
    It's becoming hard to remember back to the days when a voter could
    express a 'differing' opinion in a circle of people who mostly held
    some other political opinion without the wrath of this other political
    opinion being focused right between the one voter's eyes for daring
    to differ.

    We live in such a society now.  We still get plenty of lip service
    about how some Americans still value free speech in this country, 
    but when it's no longer possible to discuss the issues among voters
    without virtual or physical blood being shed, it becomes meaningless.

    Whether or not the actual Whitewater hearings continue, the investigations
    will continue about Whitewater.  So I don't think it will make much
    of a difference whether the hearings continue indefinitely or stop
    in the near future.

    It's impossible to have a real discussion of the different viewpoints
    of this matter between voters, so there's no way that one side will
    ever convince voters on the other side of this matter to change their 
    minds or votes about it or to become convinced that this is the one
    most important issue facing our entire country today.

    By the way, even Newt now admits (per CNN on March 9, 1996) that
    Clinton will win any debates he has with Dole.

    Newt still thinks Dole will win the election anyway, but think about
    what it means if one Republican party leader states in public that
    the probable Republican party Presidential candidate is unable to
    win a debate on the issues against his opponent in a Presidential 
    election.

    Alan Keyes won the New Hampshire debate and when he was denied access
    to some other debates, he stated that these other states were trying
    to exclude the person (Alan Keyes) who would most likely have won
    those debates, too.  He said they were trying to exclude the person
    most qualified (among the current crop of candidates) to be the next
    President of the United States.

    Dole has very few ideas and what ideas he has are stated very poorly.
    If what Alan Keyes has said (about the ability to win a debate on
    the issues) is correct, then Dole is the least qualified candidate
    (among this year's Republican crop) to be the nominee.

    Will enough American voters be willing to ignore this to elect Dole
    even when Republican leaders seem to be very aware of the problems
    Dole will have in trying to discuss the issues in this campaign?
    (We'll see.)

    .470
    In all honesty, every administration in the 20th Century except
    Hoover's had corruption and scandal of some sort.  
    
    Ron

    It's been one hell of a Century, eh Ron?
    

    Yes, Suzanne, it is one heck of a century for this country, only the
    ways and means of finding a way to make a buck [legally or illegally]
    is the only thing that differentiates today's crooks from yesteryears.
    
    Ron

    Wow - after reading more articles this evening about the issues facing 
    us in this political year, I really have to laugh.

    Americans against Americans.
    Voters against voters.
    Digital employees against Digital employees.
    Brothers against brothers.

    The divisions deepen (and this is only one of a great many divisions
    in this country, most of which are far more fundamental than WW.)

    Something out there will benefit like hell from all this, and it won't
    be the United States of America.

| <<< Note 26.473 by USAT05::HALLR "God loves even you!" >>>

| In all honesty, every administration in the 20th Century except
| Hoover's had corruption and scandal of some sort.

	Kirby had an administration? When????

| <<< Note 26.476 by SPECXN::CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

| Americans against Americans.
| Voters against voters.
| Digital employees against Digital employees.
| Brothers against brothers.

	Does this mean that the sisters all get along? :-)

    RE: .478  Glen

    >> Americans against Americans.
    >> Voters against voters.
    >> Digital employees against Digital employees.
    >> Brothers against brothers.

    > Does this mean that the sisters all get along? :-)

    No, actually, it doesn't.  (Unfortunately.)  :/

    When I wrote 'Brothers against brothers', I was making a reference
    to the first U.S. Civil War (so far).

    Re: .465, Ron....
    
    From Feb 6th, Limbaugh radio show transcript...
    Yup, an obvious waste of time!
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
o	Pending and Possible Indictments: White House lawyer and
Presidential adviser Bruce Lindsey (according to the May 5, 1995
USA Today, received target letter from Whitewater prosecutors).

o	Indictments: James McDougal for fraud and conspiracy concerning
Madison Guaranty S&L and Capital Management Services; Governor
Jim Guy Tucker (D-AR) for fraud, conspiracy, taking out $300,000
in SBA loans under false pretenses, and defrauding the IRS; Susan
McDougal (for allegedly embezzling $150,000 from conductor Zubin
Mehta and his wife).

o	Convictions: David Hale (felony fraud-March, 1994); Robert
Palmer (convicted of falsifying appraisal documents related to
Madison Guaranty S&L-December, 1994); Webster Hubbell (convicted
of mail fraud, tax evasion, and overbilling clients of at least
$394,000-December, 1994); Charles Matthews and Eugene Fitzhugh
(bribery-January 1995, defrauding the SBA-April 1995); real
estate broker Christopher V. Wade (pleaded guilty to lying to a
bankruptcy court and filing false loan applications to buy
Whitewater property-March, 1995); Little Rock banker Neil Ainley
(pleaded guilty to reduced charges of willfully delivering false
documents to the government-May 1995); Arkansas college professor
Stephen Smith (pleaded guilty to misusing federal funds to help
pay off a loan he took out along with James McDougal and Governor
Jim Guy Tucker); Larry Kuca (pleaded guilty to defrauding the SBA
of a $150,000 loan together with David Hale-July 1995).

	 

    

    
      For Whitewater buffs, the scene has shifted to the courtroom in
     Arkansas for the McDougal-Tucker trial.  Front page news in
     Arkansas, this is not viewed as particularly partisan, but it is
     uncommon for governors to be defendants in criminal trials, and
     many in Little Rock view this as a public relations disaster for
     the state no matter how it comes out.  Clinton's testimony will
     be by videotape.  Of course, the trials in these bank fraud cases
     will continue regardless of any Congressional hearings.
    
      bb

    >Clinton's testimony will be by videotape.  
    
     That's a farce. They might as well have told him he didn't have to
    testify.

    RE: .480  Hank

    How many actual indictments or convictions have occurred to people
    who were part of the Clinton Presidential administration in Washington
    DC (per your list)?

    How does this compare to indictments or convictions in the Nixon and 
    Reagan administrations, for example?

    As far as I can tell, only one person who ever worked for the Clinton
    Administration in Washington has been indicted or convicted, and this
    guy was nailed for something he did years ago on his own (before ever 
    becoming part of the Clinton administration.)

    Is there more than one?

 Vote for Bill Clinton..he's had less indictments and convictions in his
 administration than the 3 previous presidents.

    No - just take Bill's critics' statements with a large grain of salt.

    When they talk about all the shocking indictments, etc., they are
    mostly referring to people who have never been part of the Clinton
    administration in any way.

    
      Well, the fraud occurred before Clinton ever came to Washington.
    
      The convictions have to do with the fraud itself, which is certainly
     proven to have been real.
    
      The hearings in Washington have little to do with Tucker/McDougal -
     the actual fraud is in the courts, not the Congress.  Instead of the
     criminal banking, the hearings have investigated whether there was a
     coverup of the extent of the Clinton's involvement in the phony
     land deals of nonexistent properties, the check kiting, etc.  As such,
     it involves the investigation of White House staff who weren't in
     Arkansas and obviously weren't involved with the crooks.  You are
     correct - the coverup is NOT proved, only the bank fraud is.
    
      bb

    Thank you, bb.

    re: >Clinton's testimony will be by videotape.
    
    This gets me to thinkin... you know them Saturday Night Live deals
    when they put some typed info on the bottom of the screen while
    someone is talking?
    
    (Can you believe this bozo?)
    (Hey... check out that babe out in the gallery)
    (Christ, let's hurry it up already I got a chick waiting at the hotel)
    (THERE IT GOES.... his nose... he's gone pinochio!)
    ( I didn't inhale)
    (Socks told me to do it)
    (Hillary... HILLARY!!!!!)
                            

    If they show Clinton's videotape testimony on regular TV, they
    could put subliminal messages in it:

    		"Dole couldn't beat SOCKS in a debate!!"

    		"William Safire, Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander
    		   are the ones who thought up the name 'CREEP'
    		   for Richard Nixon's re-election campaign! 
    		   Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!"
                                                                
    		"Newt eats kitty litter to get that look on his
    		   face when he's blasting the Democrats!"

    Suzanne:
    
    Sometimes I wonder I about you.
    
    Ron

    
    :-)
    

    I don't know what you're so happy about.  Another four years of Clinton
    will result in one of the following:
    
    a) nothing- no change, status quo, etc.
    b) compromise- Congress will compromise on their bills and end up
       sticking it to the taxpayers 
    c) a MAJOR entitlement problem after he leaves office (since nothing
       realistic will be done about Medica** while he's in office- unless
       we get a Republican Veto-Proof Congress in the near future)
    
    
    You may be a good party player, but reality tells me that there is
    nothing at all to laugh about in this current political situation.
    
    And FWIW, I don't think Dole will get much done, either, should he fall
    into the White House.  He's an improvement over Clinton, but then
    again, I can't think of ANY candidate that would not be- so that's not
    really saying a lot.  At least Dole would try to address Medica**, which 
    is one issue that absolutely MUST be addressed this next administration 
    in a REAL way.  He would likely support Congress' cola reduction in
    these programs, which is at least a step in the right direction.
    
    
    -steve

    From the internet..
    Reproduced without permission
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Washington Times 
Monday, March 18, 1996 
By: Paul Craig Roberts 



   Senate  Democrats,  far from the most reputable collection of persons,
have used  the  filibuster  to block a continuation of the Senate Whitewatergate
Hearings.  The  White House frustrated the Senate committee's investigation by
refusing to release subpoenaed documents until the authorization for the
investigation  had  almost  expired,  and now the Democrats are saying "too bad,
time's up, it's all over."

   One  couldn't  ask for any better evidence that the Clintons have plenty to
hide  than  to  see  the  Senate Democrats circling the wagons around a
vulnerable  White  House.  But  watching  the  Republicans butt their heads
against  a  filibuster  when they have plenty of committees before which to hold
Whitewater hearings makes a person wonder if the Republicans also have something
to hide. The  Democrats'  lawyer  for  the now expired Whitewater committee,
Richard Ben-Veniste,  seems  to be suggesting that Republicans do have something
to hide. He should know. He was an attorney for Barry Seal, a cocaine smuggler
who  operated  out  of Arkansas' Mena airport. Mr. Seal is deceased, rubbed out
by some hit men. Mr. Ben-Veniste told the Wall Street Journal on March 8  that
he  put  "Barry  Seal  into  the  arms of Vice-President Bush, who embraced him
as an undercover operative."

   The Journal saw in this an implicit warning that if the Republicans stay on
the Whitewater trail, they will end up in the pit with the Clintons.

   What  Whitewater  seems to come home to is the laundering of drug money. The
Wall  Street  Journal  in  a  March  11 editorial says it has obtained minutes
of  a  high level Resolution Trust Corp. meeting that says Clinton friend and
financial backer Dan Lasater, convicted of cocaine distribution, "may  have
been  establishing depository accounts at Madison S&L and other financial
institutions and laundering drug money through them via brokered deposits and
bond issues."

   When  Mr.  Clinton was Arkansas governor, he centralized the issuance of
bonds  in  the  Arkansas Development Finance Authority, which he kept under his
direct  control.  Mr.  Lasater,  of  all  people,  emerged  as  a bond
underwriter.

   The Republicans, dilatory as they are, have not managed to get around to this
part  of  the  story.  And  the  Democrats, by killing the Whitewater Committee,
are  trying  to make sure the Republicans, even if they had the inclination,
don't get to the nitty-gritty.

   Yet,  there  is  nothing  to  stop  Republicans  from  going  ahead with
Whitewatergate  hearings  but their own wimpishness. The Banking Committee, the
Judiciary Committee, and a number of other committees and subcommittees could
easily claim oversight and investigatory jurisdiction. One can't help but wonder
why the Republicans don't just get down to work.

   Even  the  kid-glove  Whitewater  Committee  investigation has turned up
enough  smoking  guns  that  an aggressive U.S. Attorney would already have
indicted  lesser suspects. There is enough evidence of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and witness tampering to take the case to trial.

   Just imagine if Richard Nixon had withheld the tapes for two years after a
subpoena  with the claim they were lost - only to have an aide find them in the
White House living quarters. Just imagine if he had sworn under oath that  he
didn't  do  the  legal work on sham real estate transactions that brought  down,
at taxpayer expense, a savings and loan association -only to have  the  billing
records  turn  up  showing  the  opposite. Imagine if a government
investigator   had   testified   before   Congress   that  her investigation  of
an  S&L  owned  by Mr. Nixon's business partner had been stymied  by  higher-ups
concerned about the implications for the president. And so on.

   Mr.  Nixon  was  driven  from  office because evidence turned up that he
learned  of  the Watergate burglary before the date that he said he learned of
it.  Of  course, the application of such a strict standard to Mr. Nixon doesn't
mean  the  Clintons  should  be  abused  in the same way. But some standards
should apply.

   The  problem  with  standards,  however,  is that they cannot be applied
without  confrontation,  and  that  seems  beyond  the capability of Senate
Republicans.

   If  House  Republicans had any spirit left, they could egg matters on by
threatening  to  draw  up  articles  of impeachment. But the House has been
uncharacteristically silent.

   Perhaps  Mr.  Ben-Veniste  is  right that Whitewatergate is a bipartisan
scandal  that  the  Republicans  can milk to embarrass the Clintons but not
really investigate.




   Paul  Craig  Roberts  is  a  columnist  for  The Washington Times and is
nationally syndicated.
 

    laundering drug money.  fancy that.  and where did he say George was?
    
    ;-)
    
    The War on Some Drugs has not only corrupted Columbia's government.
    It has corrupted our own.
    
    End it, now.
    
    DougO

    Let it out, let it all out. And let the chips fall where they may.

    The recent issue of TIME with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the cover --
    last week's? -- had what seemed to me an unusually clear discussion of
    the Whitewater business.  Did anyone who has been following the affair
    more closely read this?  Did it seem reasonably complete and accurate?
    
    -Stephen

    That's gotta be from Blood Sport. Braucher, aren't you reading this
    yet?

    
      Yeah, yeah, Doc - I saw the Time ish in kvestchin.  But before
     I could finish the Whitewater part, the dentist's nurse called
     my name.
    
      Howzit end ?
    
      bb

Your dentist has current magazines?

    "Blood Sport" has no new revelations.

    I saw the author interviewed on "Nightline" and he admitted this.

    What I've heard about the book is that it explains what the issues are
    in a very straightforward and understandable way, and shows how the
    evidence fits into the allegations.

    The excerpt in TIME is certainly very "straightforward and
    understandable."
    
    -Stephen

    Clinton supporters shouldn't be so upbeat that "there is nothing new in
    the book, BLOOD SPORT."
    
    	While there may be no new questionable incidents detailed, there is
    plenty of insight into the messy problems around Whitewater. The
    Clintons have much to explain and it is now obvious that Whitewater
    will never go away. 
    
    	And Bill and Hillary have only themselves to blame. They should
    have followed the advice of David Gergen.

Whitewater judge to allow Clinton to testify on videotape

__________________
 ASSOCIATED PRESS
------------------

 LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - President Clinton can testify by videotape at the trial of 
his former Whitewater partners, but he may not have the questions in advance, 
a federal judge ruled yesterday.

 US District Judge George Howard Jr. denied a request from James and Susan 
McDougal to compel Clinton to testify in person at their conspiracy and fraud 
trial. He said ordering Clinton to travel to Little Rock "would be unduly 
burdensome to the president in the performance of his official duties."

 Rejecting Clinton's request to see the questions in advance, Howard said the 
only reason a president might deserve such special treatment would be if 
national security were involved.

 "They concern matters from prior to his presidency, so matters of national 
security will not be concerned," Howard said. Clinton had argued that the 
process would go more easily of he got the questions in advance.

 Howard also rejected Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr's request that the 
questioning be held in a courtroom. Howard said it could be held at the White 
House, but without the presidential insignia displayed.

 The judge will preside over the questioning by video conferencing and will 
rule on any objections. He will also edit the videotape if lawyers cannot 
agree on what is pertinent for the jury to hear.

 The videotape will be made in private, and the original will not be released. 
Howard said he will unseal only the portion that is played for the jury.

 McDougal, his former wife, Susan, and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker are accused of 
arranging nearly $3 million in fraudulent loans from McDougal's Madison 
Guaranty Savings and Loan and David Hale's Capital Management Services Inc.

 Hale is the government's chief witness and claims Clinton pressured him to 
loan Mrs. McDougal $300,000. Clinton has called the accusation "a bunch of 
bull." The McDougals say only Clinton can set the story straight.

 "The important thing is that we're going to be getting the president's 
testimony," Mrs. McDougal's attorney, Bobby McDaniel, said after Howard's 
ruling.

    
    
    re: .505
    
    >Clinton had argued that the process would go more easily of he got the
    >questions in advance.
    

     It's easier to keep your lies straight, anyway.

    "See the questions in advance...", this alone shows that Bill Clinton
    has no shame, no class, and no character!!!
    
    	How many of you Clinton supporters see it differently?

    Suzanne will now explain why Clinton should be the only witness to get
    to testify via videotape having been given the list of questions ahead
    of time.

re: .508

	Reagan saw the questions in advance and recorded the answers in advance
for some hearing or trial.  I thought it was cowardly garbage from Reagan and I 
think it is not right for Clinton.  You either testify or not.  As for class, he
can still show some class if he doesn't answer "I don't recal!" to every
question.

    Heard on "For The People" that a new special prosecutor has been
    assigned to the Vince Foster death investigation. He is Steve Parker, 
    whose investigative specialty is homicide. Also the TravelGate
    investigation has been assigned to none other than Kenneth Starr.
    
    The saga continues...

    I'm just amazed at how forgiving people are these days.  What a
    metamorphosis that has taken place since 1974.

    Is it a special prosecutor or an independent counsel?

    Wonder how many "memory lapses" ole Sliq will have ;-)

Independent counsel suggests investigation could go
beyond November


Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net
Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press 

BISMARCK, Ark. (Mar 30, 1996 7:21 p.m. EST) -- Whitewater
prosecutor Kenneth Starr suggested Saturday that his investigation may
last beyond Election Day.

Starr, speaking at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Associated Press
Managing Editors, said Justice Department policies prevented his talking
specifically about pending cases. He prefaced many of his remarks by
saying they were offered only in hypothetical terms.

When asked whether he saw a hypothetical special investigation based in
Little Rock lasting beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election, Starr said
"Yes."

The remark was an obvious reference to his investigation into the
Whitewater land development in northern Arkansas.

James and Susan McDougal, former Whitewater real estate partners of
President Clinton and his wife, and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker are on trial on
charges of arranging nearly $3 million in fraudulent loans through David
Hale's company and through Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

The McDougals owned the savings and loan until it collapsed in 1989 at
a cost to taxpayers of $65 million.

The Clinton-McDougal partnership is at the heart of Starr's
investigation, though it is not directly related to the current trial. The
Clintons have not been charged with any crimes.

Starr said such an investigation cannot be restricted by a deadline.

"When you have a conspiracy that is characterized by silence, the key is
getting inside. You can't put an arbitrary limit on that," he said.

He said any attempt at limiting prosecutors would have to consider "the
ability of the investigation to find the truth."

"Gee, and I'm speaking in the hypothetical, we're just getting documents
for subpoenas we submitted 20 months ago," Starr said.

The White House this year turned over documents that Starr requested
in 1994.

Starr's investigation has lasted two years and two months. If it goes into
November, it will be two months shy of three years. The probe has cost
taxpayers more than $18 million, not including the cost of congressional
inquiries in Washington.

A special Whitewater grand jury disbanded March 23 after two years
when it reached its legal limit. Deputy Independent Counsel W. Hickman
Ewing said the prosecutors' office would ask for access to another panel.

    Well, things look like they are going to get very interesting for both
    of the Clinton's at this point.
    
    According to the news today David Hale has named Clinton directly in
    his testimony that Clinton asked him to get him money but, "my name can
    never be associated with this."
    
    I don't know, but this seems to be the smoking gun that all of the
    Slick supporters have said doesn't exist.
    
    This adminstration has been dirty since before it took office and now
    all of the filth is beginning to rise to the sdurface.  I wonder what
    it will take for the Clinton apologists to throw in the towel on this
    sleazy pair.
    

    If the only proof of this allegation is Hale's testimony (in return
    for a lighter sentence for a crime that had nothing to do with the
    Clintons), it isn't much of a smoking gun.

    It's a lot closer to Hale's passing gas, actually.

    
    Reproduced without permission.
    From....I uh, don't recall
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
4/1/96

By Tony Snow / The Detroit News



    WASHINGTON - You hear it everywhere, even in Washington's Democratic
salons and saloons: Bill and Hillary Rodham
    Clinton have a knack for looking guilty. They withhold information,
move files, tell silly lies and just do dumb stuff.

  Although the consensus holds that the Clintons are sweet bunglers
rather than artful dodgers, recent events offer tantalizing
hints to the contrary.

  Exhibit 1: State lawyers in Arkansas have begun roughing up folks
whose testimony in upcoming trials could implicate the
Clintons. Consider the case of David Hale, who alleges the president
coerced him into funneling $300,000 into a fund run by a
Clinton business partner's wife, even though the cash was supposed to
support minority businesses.

  Arkansas gumshoes rejected a request from Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr that they hold up Hale's prosecution until
after the Whitewater-related trial of Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. The locals
refused and threw the book at the ex-judge - sentencing
him last week to 28 months in the slammer. Everyone in the state knows
that Hale fears for his life. So the message is: If you
want to walk, don't talk.

  Exhibit 2: The Ozark Cosa Nostra even has taken a few swipes at Starr.
Democrats last week launched into an attack on the
independent counsel - the same man they entrusted with the decision on
how to handle the Packwood diaries - alleging that his
outside legal work conflicts with his investigation of the Clinton
scandals.

  This may mark the first time that anybody in the Party of Clinton has
found fault with a rich lawyer. Sam Dash, who served as
counsel on the original Watergate Committee and is an associate in the
Whitewater investigation, has dismissed the charges as
bunk.

  Exhibit 3: On the congenital lawyer front, the first lady recently
answered under oath a series of questions posed by the
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which is looking
into the travel-office scandal.

  The testimony offers plenty of fodder for those who believe mad cow
disease has struck every attorney in the White House.

  The House committee requested "all information known to you" regarding
the events and circumstances surrounding the firing
of seven travel office employees on May 19, 1993.

  By my count, she said, "I don't recall," or some equivalent 50 times
in 42 paragraphs.

  A typical passage: "I do not believe that I asked (Associate White
House Counsel Vincent) Foster why action wasn't being
taken to terminate the employees of the White House Travel Office. ... I
do not recall saying to Mr. Foster that I wanted him to
act with respect to those employees. ... I don't recall speaking to Mr.
Foster about any proposed or actual activities of Mr.
(Harry) Thomason at the White House. I do not believe I ever spoke to
Mr. Foster about aviation matters..."

  Some answers defy belief, such as the assertion that "I do not recall
even knowing of the existence of the travel office until
sometime in the first two weeks of May (1993)," and "I do not recall
having had communications with anyone about removal of
documents from Mr. Foster's office and the individuals who were in his
office prior to the review of the office on July 22, 1993
..."

  And, of course, she has no records - no phone logs, memorandums,
letters, diary entries, nothing.

  Nor will she search for documents that might shed light on the
problem: too much work.

  Still, Mrs. Clinton stumbled.

  Contrary to press reports, her testimony did present some new
evidence.

  Her carefully hedged replies mildly contradict what she told the
General Accounting Office two years ago - that she had no
role in the firings.

  She now says she can't recall specific conversations, but does admit
having talked with Hollywood producer and old friend
Harry Thomason, who by all accounts provoked the episode, and concedes
that she had a series of meetings with other
principals in the affair, including the late Vincent Foster Jr.

  Her replies place her in direct conflict with David Watkins, who now
faces federal charges of obstructing justice.

  They also may set up a game of chicken with Thomason, who has been hit
with a libel suit by an airline-charter company that
got swept away in the travel-office undertow.

  This places Kenneth Starr - the man being stonewalled by the Arkansas
royalty and smeared by the Clintons allies - in an
interesting position. A handful of Reagan officials were packed off to
jail for smaller inconsistencies than Mrs. Clinton's. They
were indicted under 18 USC section 1001 (obstruction of justice) and
copped pleas under 2 USC section 192 (contempt of
Congress).

  So inquiring minds want to know: Will Starr try to do the same to the
first lady?



  Tony Snow is The News editorial page's Washington columnist.

    Hank:
    
    I liked Tony's reference to the Arkansas royalty...maybe pigs CAN fly!

    
    Yup, amusing reading.
    
    I must admit though, that the extent of Hillary Rodham Clintons
    amnesia is impressive.
    
    Did we really want someone with the mental capacity of cheech&chong
    overhauling health care?

    remember Hank, she learned from the best, the Nixon Administration!

    
    RE:mental capacity of cheech&chong
    
     And whats wrong with cheech&chong? You can be sure no one would be
    feeling any pain if they got to overhaul the health care system. There
    sources for drugs would be cheaper also!!!!!
    
      . .
       ,
     \___/
    
    Dave
     

    They voted for McGovern.

    
    re: .517
    
    >It's a lot closer to Hale's passing gas, actually.
    
    
    And if the jury believes him, will that make them gas-bags too??
    

    Wow, so folks here think Ronald Reagan was lying when he said he
    didn't remember anything about Iran-Contra, eh?
    
    Interesting.

    
    Reagan suffers from Alzheimers.  He could have been in the early stages
    back then.

    He was in the early stages when they made the announcement a year or
    two ago.
    
    In the late stages, the person can't move or speak (or eat) anymore.

    >Reagan suffers from Alzheimers.  
    
    That's just a coverup. They actually keep him sedated because he
    expressed a willingness to come clean on his involvement in
    Iran-Contra. That's why you never see him in public anymore- it's part
    of the coverup.
    
    As for Suzanne's relentless defense of all things Clinton. :-) Yeah,
    sure she doesn't remember anything about anything. She's definitely
    being completely above board about this, just like everything else.
    those mean republicans are picking on her because she's an uppity
    woman, yeah, that's it. She's as pure as the driven snow. Uh-huh.
    Absolutely. there's never been a family in american politics that were
    as completely open and honest with the american public, not to mention
    innocent. It's persecution, that's what it is. After all, she has the
    strongest moral compass of anyone the President of the United States of
    America has ever known. At least in the biblical sense.

    
    As mentioned, Ron Reagan may have been suffering from the early
    stages of Alzheimers (sp?). No matter, Reagan is not the issue.
    
    Hillary Rodham Clinton is touted as a top lawyer, the brains
    within this marriage.
    As such, one might ask how it is that such a smart lawyer/first lady could
    be so incredibly forgetful. 

    Whatever it is, a recent ABC poll showed that over 70% of Americans
    believe that the Whitewater investigations, etc., are being done by
    the Republicans for partisan reasons:  to embarrass the Clintons.

    The polls showed that the Republicans are now hurting themselves by
    all this more than they are hurting the Clintons.

    If you look at Hank's article this morning, it's long on nastiness
    and short on substance.  The American people are noticing this.

>             -< So if someone says they don't recall, it's a lie? >-

	you know how it is, Suzanne.  every single word that the
	Clintons utter is a lie. ;>
  
  

    There's that 70% figure agian.  Must be some sort of statistical
    harmonic convergence, or something.  

>             -< So if someone says they don't recall, it's a lie? >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Wow, so folks here think Ronald Reagan was lying when he said he
>    didn't remember anything about Iran-Contra, eh?
>    
>    Interesting.
    
    
    I think this is a reasonable question to ask.  DO people think Reagan
    was lying?  If not, if people think he merely didn't remember, isn't is
    possible that other people could not remember and not be lying?
    

    
    	Maybe Hillary didn't take very good notes while all this was
    	happening.  After all, no one's expected to remember EVERY-
    	THING without a little reminder.
    
    	Of course, she could be innocent of all accusations, which
    	definitely explains her memory problems.
    

    
    	Or, maybe Hillary is going through the 1st stages of Alzheimer's.
    
    	But probably not, since Alzheimer's seems to be a Republican-
    	only affliction.
    

    Mz. Debra:
    
    Of course Reagan lied...but so what?  Reagan best represented my
    interests.

    clinton is satan.

    The Iran-Contra hearings were only about 6 years ago, No?   Reagan's
    illness was announced officially a couple of years ago, but most people
    think he was already in the mid stages by then.  The illness can
    develop over 5-6 years.  (My grandfather lasted six years from onset
    of serious symptoms).
    
    Reagan's testimony as a whole looked uncertain and bumbling.  Not just
    that he answered "I don't remember" many times but he also apparently
    failed to understand questions and was often confused by the
    proceedings.  In retrospect, it could be classic early stage
    Alzheimers.  Other than that performance, his other public appearances
    were the carefully choreographed official duties at which he excelled.
    
    If the policy had been to keep him minimally informed of I-C goings on,
    then it's perfectly plausible that he simply did not remember the very
    few details that he *may* have known.
    
    However much you dislike it, there is a strong possibility that the
    guy genuinely forgot.
    
    Colin
    

    If you don't remember the precise wording of conversations which
    took place years ago (and who does??), it's dangerous to make
    definitive statements about them.

    If the slightest mistake is made on such definitive statements
    made under oath, a person can be charged with perjury.

    If someone asked me about the stock price when I sold a few shares of
    my DEC stock a couple of months ago, I'd say that I don't remember.
    I think it was something like $71.50, but I wouldn't risk jail time
    on such a guess (even though it involved money and I feel like I ought
    to remember.)

    If they asked me the amount of the check I received from DEC for this
    stock, I can only get within a couple hundred dollars (even though
    I was extremely happy to get it, and I entered the value into Quicken
    myself.)  It was only a couple of months ago, too.

    Ask me about the conversation with my husband about selling some of
    my stock, and I'll say I don't remember.  I didn't need his permission,
    but I know I mentioned it to him.  When, though?  I don't remember.
    What did I say to him about it?  Boy, that's a tough one.  I think
    I may have indicated why I wanted to sell a few shares of stock, but
    I don't recall the conversation at all now.  I think I told him way
    ahead of time, but I'm not sure when I made the decision to sell the
    shares, so I have no idea when that might be.

    I could guess about it, but I don't really remember.  I've been busy
    since then.

    Last week, my husband and I talked about our new house (and we drove
    by our land again after going out to lunch over the weekend.)

    What did we say about the new house, though?  I don't remember.  I know
    I thought about the new house a lot last week, and I said something to
    my husband about it - but what?  I think we talked about it over the
    weekend, but what did we talk about?  I think it had something to do
    with how much we might get by selling our present house (and how much
    our total down payment would be), but I was thinking mostly about the
    design of the house last week, so if I had to testify under oath about
    this conversation, I'd be very hesitant to say that I remembered the
    entire conversation.  (I don't.)

    This conversation occurred four days ago.

    Do people remember the precise wording of conversations they had
    three or four years ago?  No, most people don't.

    
    	If only these conversations had been recorded onto tape, eh?
    
    	Then the tapes could be played in front of all, and all would
    	be happy.
    

    Who has enough tape to record all the conversations they have in a
    given three or four year period, though?
    
    (Besides Nixon.)  :)

Actually, Hale does have some verification (if that's what you 
want to call it) on at least part of his testimony.

The Clinton defense team is claiming that Hale is making up the 
story about being shaken down by Clinton for $150k now to save 
his butt.

But, there's been others that have stepped forward that have said 
that Hale told them the same thing years ago when it happened.

In any case, one of the *ahem* "best and most intelligent lawyers 
in the country" apparently has the memory of a gnat. Believe it 
or not.

daryll

    Such testimony would be 'hearsay', of course, if these witnesses
    even exist.
    
    If Hale was in such a mood to spill his guts to people back then,
    why did he only tell a small part of the story he's telling now?

    Daryll, quick - recite for me the exact conversations you had all
    day on June 28, 1993.
    
    If you can't, then you have the memory of a gnat.

    
    So... we've got one gas-bag accusing another gas-bag of wrong doing...
    correct?
    

I ... can't remember
My brain's in a blender
It's Jell-O

    No, we've got one gas-bag who broke the law trying to save his butt
    by doing the one thing that makes the Republican party salivate enough
    to fill the Mississippi river:  Saying something bad about Clinton while
    under oath.

 ZZ    The goal is to defeat Bill, even if it takes dishonesty to do it >
    
    You mean like...fight fire with fire?

According to you....

    As if you're not biased, right Daryll?
    

    only other people are biased.

While I don't pretend to be unbiased, I'm also not in here at 
every opportunity defending them and declaring them innocent and 
citing these silly polls that you seem to think actually mean 
something.

daryll

    Every opportunity??  :-)
    
    In that case, most of the notes in this topic must be supportive
    of the Clintons.
    
    Thank you for letting me know.

    >I think this is a reasonable question to ask.  DO people think Reagan
    >was lying?  If not, if people think he merely didn't remember, isn't is
    >possible that other people could not remember and not be lying?
    
     It's a lot easier for me to believe that a seventy something year old
    honestly forgot things than someone in their late 40s to early 50s.
    Personally, I think Reagan may well have known at least something, but
    then again he moght not have. I do not believe that HRC remembers
    absolutely nothing, particularly given the fact that everyone on her
    staff and in the white house has roughly coordinating memory lapses.
    Given the snail's pace at which long ago subpoenaed documents have been
    appearing, it seems to me that the suspension of disbelief is at least
    strained.
    
     If in fact the Clintons are not covering up misdeeds of their own or
    those of political cronies, they certainly seem to be going out of
    their way to create that impression. Explaining everything away as
    partisan sniping does neither the issues nor the facts (inasmuch as
    they've allowed the facts to surface at all) justice.

    Mark, you're younger than HRC and you seem to have forgotten that
    HRC has remembered and described some relevant conversations.

    No one has a perfect memory about what they've seen, heard and said
    over the years, though.  Not you, not anybody.

    >    Mark, you're younger than HRC and you seem to have forgotten that
    >    HRC has remembered and described some relevant conversations.
    
     She's also been contradicted in her accounts by documents which were
    thought to be shredded, I mean, lost for all eternity.
    
    >No one has a perfect memory about what they've seen, heard and said
    >over the years, though.  Not you, not anybody.
    
     Of course not. And nobody expects her to have perfect recall. But
    these are not new allegations. If someone accused me of impropriety
    within a couple of months of the purported activity, I'd sure as hell
    go over the incidents in my mind and probably write down some notes
    about what I remembered of the incidents. Additionally, I'd secure any
    exculpatory documents I could. HRC appears to have done none of this.
    Indeed, it appears that all relevent documents have been conveniently
    expunged. Well, the ones they remembered to do, anyway. It looks to me
    that Ms Rodham Clinton endeavored to use the "I don't recall" defense
    coupled with the intentional destruction of evidence from the get go.
    

    RE: .556  Mark Levesque

    >> Mark, you're younger than HRC and you seem to have forgotten that
    >> HRC has remembered and described some relevant conversations.
    
    > She's also been contradicted in her accounts by documents which were
    > thought to be shredded, I mean, lost for all eternity.

    Wow, good dodge about the problems with your own memory. :)

    Republicans damn the Clintons no matter what they do.  Pure and simple.
    If she remembers conversations, they say she's lying.  If she can't
    remember conversations, they say she's lying.  If she opens her mouth
    to bless someone for sneezing, they say she's lying.

    When you carpet bomb someone with accusations with the hope that 
    something somewhere will stick (somehow), don't be surprised if
    this person's supporters (and/or the majority of Americans) begin
    to think you're just being partisan about all this.

    > If someone accused me of impropriety within a couple of months of the 
    > purported activity, I'd sure as hell go over the incidents in my mind 
    > and probably write down some notes about what I remembered of the 
    > incidents. Additionally, I'd secure any exculpatory documents I could. 
    > HRC appears to have done none of this. 

    Baloney.  You'd be mad as hell about being falsely accused as part of
    'dirty tricks' politics.  So would I.

    The Clintons have cooperated with all this more than any other couple
    in the White House has ever done.

    If the accusations weren't so filthy, stinking, nasty, dirty and
    mean-spirited, perhaps this whole thing would look like a sincere 
    Republican search for 'the truth', somehow.

    But it's too late for that now.

    If you want to convince voters (aside from the Clinton-haters) that
    the Clintons have really done something wrong, you have to be a lot
    smarter about how you deliver this message.

    The endless unfounded (mean-spirited) accusations won't do the job.

.557 pegged my BS meter.

    
    	Democrats - bad
    	Republicans - good
    
    
    	There will be a test tomorrow.  And remember ... neatness COUNTS.
    

    
    re: .557
    
    >Republicans damn the Clintons no matter what they do.
    
    
    
    So the thing to do is turn toady for them...
    

    What was it counts again?

    RE: .561  Andy
    
    >> Republicans damn the Clintons no matter what they do.
    
    > So the thing to do is turn toady for them...
    
    No, the thing to do is to disbelieve almost everything the Republicans
    say about the Clintons.  It's all partisan BS.

    I guess she's had enough OJ bashing for one day, now it's onto
    republican bashing.

Mean-spirited. I can't remember hearing as much of that as we have since
1992. Anyone who (a) sniffs an odor and mentions it, or (b) disagrees
with liberal giveaways is mean-spirited.

The comment about Hillary lying also reminds me of an old anecdote: how
can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

Art

    
    re: .563
    
    >No, the thing to do is to disbelieve almost everything the Republicans
    > say about the Clintons.  It's all partisan BS.
    
    You sound like a Republican toady for Nixon before Deep-Throat
    surfaced...
    

    I see that Kenneth Starr has said that it is quite likely that his
    investigation will continue past November, as a result of the
    non-cooperation he's experienced. Time to beat the republican bashing
    drum (again) I guess.

    Surely you aren't suggesting that Kenneth Starr is unbiased, Mark.
    
    If the election were being held in December, he'd continue the
    investigation past December.  If the election were being held in
    October, he'd continue the investigation past October.
    
    The election *is* the reason for the investigation.