Mark Foley

[billvon 2,435]

>OTOH, that's quite a misdirection and mischaracterization of Clinton's problems.

Exactly. Any GOP claims about Foley are merely facts, whereas any democratic claims about Clinton (even if they are literally factual) are "misdirections and mischaracterizations." On the democratic side, those two statements are exactly reversed - with exactly as much justification.

>I have never heard of someone losing their license to practice law
>for getting a blowjob, have you?

To take Michele's angle - I've never heard of someone losing their job over someone sending some explicit IM's/emails to another adult, have you?

[NCclimber 0]

Foley resigned (voluntarily) because of ethical wrongdoing. He was roundly condemned by his own party.

On the flipside, we have Democrats defending their own, even when they're shown to be guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

[billvon 2,435]

>On the flipside, we have Democrats defending their own, even
>when they're shown to be guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

To play this game some more -

Which is the only president to resign due to a criminal investigation?
Was Clinton successfully impeached?
How many republican congressmen are currently under criminal investigation? How many democrats? Off the top of my head I can think of Delay, Ney, Hastert (for bribery, not Foley) and Weldon.


(Silly game; both sides are as bad. But fun, eh?)

[NCclimber 0]

How many congressmen have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing in the last 15 years?

Do you think more than 1/3rd of them are Republicans?

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives. This is a fact.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>OTOH, that's quite a misdirection and mischaracterization of Clinton's problems.

Quote

Exactly. Any GOP claims about Foley are merely facts, whereas any democratic claims about Clinton (even if they are literally factual) are "misdirections and mischaracterizations." On the democratic side, those two statements are exactly reversed - with exactly as much justification.

-I haven't seen anyone defending what Foley did despite your attempts to mischaracterize a few posters on this site.

Quote

>I have never heard of someone losing their license to practice law
>for getting a blowjob, have you?

To take Michele's angle - I've never heard of someone losing their job over someone sending some explicit IM's/emails to another adult, have you?

-First of all Foley didn't "lose his job" he resigned. Say what ever else you want to about him and I'll agree with you but at least he did the right thing without having to be forced out.

-Second of all, there have been many politicians who have resigned throughout history for sex scandals and ethics violation which technically didn't violate the law, but they resigned anyway for various reasons.

-Third of all, to date Foley hasn't been charged with anything. If he is, you won't hear Republicans defending him for breaking the law as we heard from the Dems about Clinton, Reynolds Studds etc.

• Quote

[billvon 2,435]

>Do you think more than 1/3rd of them are Republicans?

I'll bet it's about half and half. I'd be further willing to bet that at any given time, the majority party is committing the majority of the crimes because a) there's more of em and b) absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So there's that to take solace in. In a few months, the democrats will be in the best position to take bribes/commit crimes/orchestrate coverups.

>Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives.

And it failed. That's a fact.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just read an interesting story on the Foley Scandal.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp
No doubt, a conservative source. But the facts speak for themselves.

It points out that in the first 12 days of this scandal, the big three networks aired over 150 stories on it. The total only counted stories on the evening news or the morning shows.

In contrast, the Mel Reynolds "scandal" got 19 stories, from the story breaking to Reynolds conviction.

Who says the media ain't driving this train???

IIRC, Mel Reynolds wasn't in charge of a child protection activity for Congress, nor a member of the "Family Values Party".

Right, he just actually had sex with someone underaged. No biggie, huh?

-

I thought it was a biggie, just not quite in the same hypocrisy league as Foley.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Right here on this forum, Michele claimed that what Foley did was no worse than what she herself had done (if the reports were to be believed) and she wonders if there was any crime at all. Dorbie claimed that people were criticizing Foley "for sending a explicit messages to a consenting adult in response to explicit messages sent to him."

So that's two people right here.

Not even close. Considering the Email's that might have been to someone over the age of consent. If the IM's show he is guilty I bet no one would say they have done the same. Also, sending explicit emails is not illegal if the person is over 18. Creepy? Yes. Illegal? No. But you don't seem to care about legal at all, only a head to put on a pike. If that head will advance your cause.

Quote

If you see one as a defense of Clinton, but see the others as simple statements of fact - well, that's a pretty standard partisan view of the world. Republicans are right, democrats are wrong, period.

And you, and others, think anything done by republicans is wrong and anything done by democrats is right.

I personally prefer to only go after the people that are actually guilty.

[billvon 2,435]

> But you don't seem to care about legal at all, only a head to put on a pike.

So far I have posted this about a dozen times -

He resigned. That's the end of the issue as far as I'm concerned, at least from a political point of view. Let a DA decide if he's broken any laws, and if he should go to trial.

But the GOP can't seem to leave it at that. They have an election to win, so they are keeping him on the front page by trying to tie democrats to it. A suggestion to all republicans - LET IT GO. Stop keeping him in the headlines. Stop trying to claim democrats are worse than Foley. Stop trying to protest his potential innocence. He resigned; he's not your representative any more. Let it go and move on.

>And you, and others, think anything done by republicans is wrong
>and anything done by democrats is right.

Nope. Both parties are equally slimey. Generally the party in power has the most opportunities (and the most politicians) to get in trouble - so now the GOP is leading the way in terms of sleaze. In a few years the democrats will take over again.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Right here on this forum, Michele claimed that what Foley did was no worse than what she herself had done (if the reports were to be believed) and she wonders if there was any crime at all. Dorbie claimed that people were criticizing Foley "for sending a explicit messages to a consenting adult in response to explicit messages sent to him."

Yes, Bill, right here on this forum I asked if sending naughty pms and emails to people I know are of age is illegal. I asked if it were comparable, inasmuch as the allegation of Foley sending emails to someone OF AGE was illegal. I was - and still am - wondering if it's illegal. And I wondered if he wasn't of age, if he was at the age of consent...why shouldn't I be curious as to the facts of the situation before I decide something? Isn't that the right thing to do? Or should I simply tar and feather someone because of an allegation? I haven't found definitive information on it, so I ***still*** don't know. Since when is it appropriate to determine the guilt or innocence of someone when the facts central to the issue have not yet been confirmed, one way or the other? Are you seriously advocating that I do that? Are you really suggesting that someone who is asking for facts is guilty of defending someone? I sincerely hope not, but since you continue to repeat it, I think perhaps you might be. Please clarify that you don't advocate someone determine someone's guilt before facts are known...simply because they sit on the other side of the aisle than you do.

I have not ever wondered if Foley was a creep. I never wondered if John Mark Karr was a creep, either (just wondered if he killed JonBenet Ramsey). I am pretty heartily convinced that both of them are. However, I wonder if Foley sent emails to someone who was OF AGE. I have the opinion (different from fact) that Foley is a creep. But being a creep isn't a crime...at least, not yet.

Just for your information, I hung a jury because, while he was a gang banger and a thug and indeed a creep, he was not factually guilty of the crime he was charged with. The evidence was not there...and some of your comments on this thread remind me of the people on the jury with me who were insisting that if I didn't convict him for this crime (even if he didn't do it), I'd be responsible for any crime he'd commit in the future. That they could tell he'd done it, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary, regardless of lack of factual information forthcoming from the prosecution, because he was "a creep". I like to have facts...and just why is that too much to ask? Why is that a problem?

If you want to tie this into a Clinton thing, Clinton lied under oath. He was tried for that. There was more than an allegation of a crime there. However, Foley has not yet given a sworn statement, and can't be accused yet of perjury (as far as I know). Additionally, I haven't heard of criminal charges being leveled against Foley, either, despite the time and all of the investigations. They might be, but they haven't been yet.

I could've sworn you and I both held the opinion that it would be wise to wait to see what (if any) charges are brought by a DA in re Foley...and yet, here you are, mischaracterizing my position again, and taking my comments both out of context and deliberately miscontruing them to allude to a different meaning. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop that.

And yes, I have sent salacious pm's and emails to people - right here on DZ.com. And all were of age. Those reports are indeed true. Is that so hard to believe? LOLOL! Or are you just sad that I didn't send them to you? (Psssst.......you're maried...and off limits. Sorry, no naughty story for you....). *(and yes, I am just teasing you here, Billv.)

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Quote

Michele claimed that what Foley did was no worse than what she herself had done (if the reports were to be believed)

BTW. I don't take lightly to being called a liar, or even having it be intimated that I might be dishonest, especially in regards to what I say about myself. I consider this a personal attack. Since you are a greenie, I am powerless in this position to do anything more than voice my sincere displeasure and ask that you not do it again.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I asked if it were comparable, inasmuch as the allegation of Foley sending emails to someone OF AGE was illegal. I was - and still am - wondering if it's illegal. And I wondered if he wasn't of age, if he was at the age of consent...why shouldn't I be curious as to the facts of the situation before I decide something?

So a Congressman....who has a LOT of power sending sleazy emails to a teenager.. a page .. who has no power..... does not equate to sexual harrassment???

Is that not illegal???

[Michele 1]

Quote

So a Congressman....who has a LOT of power sending sleazy emails to a teenager.. a page .. who has no power..... does not equate to sexual harrassment???

Is that not illegal???

I don't think it's illegal if he'sof age. Is it sexual harassment? Perhaps, but that's not a crime, but a civil violation. Is it creepy? Yeppers...but is it something he can serve time for? Again, it all hinges on the recipient's age at the time and the age of consent.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But the GOP can't seem to leave it at that. They have an election to win, so they are keeping him on the front page by trying to tie democrats to it. A suggestion to all republicans - LET IT GO. Stop keeping him in the headlines. Stop trying to claim democrats are worse than Foley. Stop trying to protest his potential innocence. He resigned; he's not your representative any more. Let it go and move on.

Uh, it seems to me that the Democrats are bringing him up to try and show how screwed up the republicans are. Very normal in politics to try and prove the other side is bad, and when a guy screws up like this its kind of easy to point it out.

But you just seem to keep passing right over that he DID resign, and the republicans do not seem to be trying to protect him other than pointing out what he did my not in fact be illegal. The FBI had the emails and did nothing. Now the IMs we will have to wait and see.

But the Democrats actually can't wait and keep bringing it up.

How about:
Wayne Hayes, D Ohio did not resign when it was found his assistant was nothing more than a girlfriend that could not even type.

Studds actually had sex with an underage page and did not resign. He got two standing ovations. And was re-elected 6 more times.

Barney Frank knew a prostitution ring was run out of his house...He is still in Congress.

The difference between the two party's is that when a Republican pulls one of these stunts, they don't get standing ovations and re-elected.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

So a Congressman....who has a LOT of power sending sleazy emails to a teenager.. a page .. who has no power..... does not equate to sexual harrassment???

Is that not illegal???

I don't think it's illegal if he'sof age. Is it sexual harassment? Perhaps, but that's not a crime, but a civil violation. Is it creepy? Yeppers...but is it something he can serve time for? Again, it all hinges on the recipient's age at the time and the age of consent.

Ciels-
Michele

Under the very law Foley had a large part in getting passed, it is a criminal (not civil) violation to send such internet communication to anyone under the age of 18. Doesn't matter if the age of consent for sex is 12 in their state of residence, if they are under 18, you are, under the provisions of the act, a criminal and sexual predator.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Under the very law Foley had a large part in getting passed, it is a criminal (not civil) violation to send such internet communication to anyone under the age of 18. Doesn't matter if the age of consent for sex is 12 in their state of residence, if they are under 18, you are, under the provisions of the act, a criminal and sexual predator.

From what I've read, internet communications are criminal is the contain overt solicitations for sex with minors. I haven't read all of the Foley messagres. Perhaps you can provide the ones where he actually solicits sex.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Do you think more than 1/3rd of them are Republicans?

I'll bet it's about half and half.

Rostenkowski
Tucker
Reynolds
Traficant

vs

Cunningham
Ney

Did I miss anyone?

Let's not overlook that Clinton avoided further prosecution by pleading out a deal on his last day in office.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

>Do you think more than 1/3rd of them are Republicans?

I'll bet it's about half and half.

Rostenkowski
Tucker
Reynolds
Traficant

vs

Cunningham
Ney

Did I miss anyone?

Yeah. A few:

By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

1. Lyn Nofziger--White House Press Secretary - Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal. The lobbying would not have been illegal had he not been White House Press Secretary.

2. Michael Deaver, Reagan's Chief of Staff, received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. Same as with Lyn Nofziger.

3. James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.

4. John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing...

5. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. Appointed by William Casey to assist Oliver North.

6. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush...

7. Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan's National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush...

8. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush...


9. Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;

10. Carl R. Channel - Office of Public Diplomacy , partner in International Business- first person convicted in the Iran/Contra scandal, pleaded guilty of one count of defrauding the United States

11. Richard R. Miller - Partner with Oliver North in IBC, a Office of Public Diplomacy front group, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

12. Frank Gomez

13.. Donald Fortier

14. Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush...

15. Rita Lavelle was indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.

16. Philip Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.

17. Thomas Demery - Assistand HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors.

18. Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Samuel Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve accounts. She appealed and prevailed on several accounts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.

20. Catalina Villaponda - Former US Treasurer

21. Joseph A. Strauss - Accepting kickbacks from developers

22. Oliver North - He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. His conviction was later overturned on appeal on a technicatlity - not on the merits. Today, he's a regular pundit on FoxNews.

Quote

Let's not overlook that Clinton avoided further prosecution by pleading out a deal on his last day in office.

He also got a blowjob. Best not overlook that either.

[NCclimber 0]

The initial questions were:
"How many congressmen have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing in the last 15 years?

Do you think more than 1/3rd of them are Republicans?"

I don't think any of the people you listed meet that criteria..... but you get an A for effort.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So far I have posted this about a dozen times -

He resigned. That's the end of the issue as far as I'm concerned, at least from a political point of view. Let a DA decide if he's broken any laws, and if he should go to trial.

But the GOP can't seem to leave it at that. They have an election to win, so they are keeping him on the front page by trying to tie democrats to it. A suggestion to all republicans - LET IT GO. Stop keeping him in the headlines. Stop trying to claim democrats are worse than Foley. Stop trying to protest his potential innocence. He resigned; he's not your representative any more. Let it go and move on.

Thank you. Will it work? Nah. Someone should run a tally on who is keeping this nauseatingly long thread going.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

He also got a blowjob. Best not overlook that either.

***Eyes Glaze Over***

[mnealtx 0]

Cool... can we play the other side of the coin?

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

THE CLINTON LEGACY: LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.

OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.

JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

You left out: number of Republicans seriously in need of a good blowjob: Infinite.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Under the very law Foley had a large part in getting passed, it is a criminal (not civil) violation to send such internet communication to anyone under the age of 18. Doesn't matter if the age of consent for sex is 12 in their state of residence, if they are under 18, you are, under the provisions of the act, a criminal and sexual predator.

And there you have the crux of the issue: was the recipient over the age of 18? And were they soliciting sex?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the recipient

I thought it was more than one recipient. So it only takes one of them to be underage, at the time, to make him subject to prosecution. If so, he should be. Regardless, he should resign and seek help.

So what's the facts?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants