Hillary_Clinton_Forum_67

Everyone is invited to participate in this HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON DEFENSE FORUM.
DONATIONS: Please send donations directly to Hillary Rodham Clinton at the White House, Washington, D.C. We do not collect money on her behalf.

To Leave Your Own Message Scroll Down to the Bottom of this Page

Click here to review the original 1995 Hillary Clinton Defense Forum
Click here to review the 1996 Hillary Clinton Defense Forum
Click here to review the 1997 Hillary Clinton Defense Forum
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to the Jan/Feb 1998 White House Sex Scandals
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to the Feb/March 1998 White House Sex Scandals
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to the March 1998 White House Sex Scandals
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to the April 1998 White House Sex Scandals
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to the May - June 1998 White House Sex Scandals
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to July 28,1988 when supporters on the Hillary Clinton Forum urged President Clinton to "Ignore the Subpoena!".Includes some messages from the Drudge Report Attack before site was hacked down.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES relating to Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 15 relating to President Clinton's August 17th speech.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 16 Discussion subsequent to President Clinton's August 17th speech, including the tie scandals.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 18 Will the President Recover? Bombing Afganistan.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 19 Thinking on the Beltway in contrast to the rest of the USA.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 20 Will the President Recover?
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 21 August 28 - September 1st.- Abortion, Gun Control, Russia, Clinton
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 22 September 1st.-7th. Dan Burton
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 23September 7th - 11th Kenneth Starr Delivers Report
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 24 Discussions on the Ken Starr Report to Congress.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 25 Hillary Clinton's documents on Nixon's impeachment.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 26 Photos and descriptions of Clinton's affairs.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 27 Discussions on perjury.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 28 Video Tapes Released! Big surprise - Clinton's ratings go up!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 29 Right-Wing extremists attack on forum. Hacked, disabled, sexual abuse. Forum shut down for three days.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 30 Hillary Clinton in San Francisco. Very popular and very presidential. Fundraising Dinner for Barbara Boxer sold out! Editors of Hillary Clinton Forum invited to attend.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 32 It's not sex, or even perjury, it's a Right-Wing COUP! Dysfunctional Democracy - The Triumph of Theocracy.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 33 Bad News for the GOP - Significant loss in polls after release of the videos on the Internet.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 34 Peace Accord in the Middle East. H.RES.545 - SPONSOR: Rep Hastings, Alcee A resolution impeaching Kenneth W. Starr,
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 35 Halloween. HUGE Voter turnout expected in California. Judge orders Starr investigation.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 36 Democrats Win Big! Americans Send a Message to Republicans - Drop it!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 37 Why the GOP lost the November 3rd Elections. Discussions on abortion.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 38 Thanksgiving. House Judiciary Committee holds impeachment hearings. Kenneth Starr in Congress. Hillary Clinton Forum Featured in THE TIMES of London
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 39 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee recommend impeaching President Clinton. Straight party line of 21-16, setting up historic political showdown.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 40 Hillary Clinton Forum in Newsweek .
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 42 US Bombs Iraq. Bob Livingston Outed by Larry Flynn!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 43 Bob Livingston Resigns in disgrace.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 44 Clinton Impeached on two counts by Kangaroo court. GOP Commits Political Suicide!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 45 Clinton's Popularity Hits New High! Promises never to resign. Halts strikes on Iraq.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 47 Merry Christmas. GOP Hypcrites outed by Larry Flynn - Citizens and media begin attacking the Radical Right.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 48 Happy New Year. Larry Flynt and Tom DeLay driving GOP Agenda.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 49 Senate Impeachment Trial begins.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 50 Republicans try to smear Clinton with Danny Williams paternity suit.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 51 Senate begins Impeachment Trial. Bob Barr & Trent Lott's connection to white supremacists.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 52 Martin Luther King Day. Clinton's State of the Union Address Brilliant Success. 77% Approval rating.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 53 GOP Self Destructs. Conservatives attack their own GOP leaders.Secret meeting with Monica.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 54 GOP Self Destructs. Pat Robertson Retreats. Bob Barr disavows the CCC.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 55 GOP Self Destructs. Larry Rockefeller's Call to Republicans.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 56 Impeachment Trial - Larry Rockefeller's call to Republicans.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 57 Impeachment Trial - Just one more week and it's over!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 58 Teletubbies furor. Tinky Winky outed by Jerry Falwell.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 59 President Clinton Acquitted on Both Charges!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 61 Discussion on the Culture War.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 62 Hillary Clinton Forum in online Encyclopedia Britannica, TIME.com. Hillary: Should she be Senator of New York?
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 63 Monica's Interview with Barbara Walters.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 64
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 65
Susan McDougal. Chinese nuclear secrets from Los Alamos.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 66 Monica Lewinsky in London. Susan McDougal back in court.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 67 Susan McDougal back in court.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 68 Susan McDougal responds to messages on the forum.Daily report from Susan McDougal regarding her trial.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 69 STARR WARS. Justice Department investigates Starr. Judge dismisses count against Hubbell. NATO Bombs Yugoslavia
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 70 NATO Bombs Yugoslavia
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 71 NATO Bombs Yugoslavia
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 72 NATO Bombs Yugoslavia
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 73 Humanitarian Catastrophe in Kosovo. NATO officials say that all ethnic Albanians will be cleared from Kosovo in 10-20 days.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 74 Humanitarian Catastrophe in Kosovo.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 75 Humanitarian Catastrophe in Kosovo. 500,000 Albanians forced out of Kosovo. Threat from Russia.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 76 NATO's failed policy in Kosovo analyzed. Should we sent in ground troops or lose the war? SUSAN McDOUGAL FREE AT LAST!!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 77 NATO's failed policy in Kosovo analyzed. Should we sent in ground troops or lose the war? SUSAN McDOUGAL FREE AT LAST!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 78 NATO's failed policy in Kosovo analyzed.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 79 NATO's failed policy in Kosovo analyzed. Columbine School in Littleton, Colorado bombed and gunned down by two students 15 dead.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 80 Jesse Jackson brings POWs back from Yugoslavia and a letter from Milosovic. Julie Steele wins! - Kenneth Starr loses again!
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 81 Hillary Clinton greets arrival of refugees from Kosovo
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 82 OOPS... NATO bombs Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
Click here to review PAST MESSAGES on FORUM 83 Clinton threatens ground troops. Senate Backs Child-Safety Gun Devices. Hillary may announce her bid for Senator of New York this week.
Click here to review MAIN FORUM Best messages brought forward to Main Forum

Invader of our Privacy: Kenneth Starr: Special Persecutor: Un-American: Must Go: NO Kenny-Kopy-Kats go into the Next Millennium! Everyone is safe from torture and persecution.

email:

Message:

McDougal, 44, has already served 18 months for civil contempt of court for refusing to answer questions in 1997 before Starr's grand jury. And you know, I will do another 18 months, hell I'll do 18 years to show that scumbag Ken Starr he can't beat me.

GO SUSAN - WE SUPPORT YOU! YOU GO GIRL OF GREAT COURAGE!

Come get me Ken Starr. I am going to put Monica on the stand and she will tell the entire world how evil you are !!!!

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

GO SUSAN - GIVE 'EM HELL! - No Kenny-Kopy-Kats in 2000! - FIRE STARR!

Name: i love her

email:

Message: Okay, I don't love hillary anymore. I love Susan! Did you see that picture of her someone stuck near the beginning of this forum. Now thats a sexy smile. I love her choice in shirts. She must have some sort of pushup bra or something that makes her chest look so sweet. I bet ControlGirl doesn't look that good! Keep posting those pics. Hopefully you can find some of the ones where she is in a miniskirt! Susan for senate! Thanks Editor for leaving the pics in.

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

You stupid Conservatives are so unbelievable. You just don't understand what a threat Ken Starr and his gang of thugs are to our way of life and freedom.

You will never understand. You are just a bunch of lie telling, Bible thumping, name-calling, peeping Tom do gooders. And I will prevail. Just look at the polls. Just look at the impeachment failure. You make me sick !

Name: Susan

email:

Message: This is what they said in the news:

Today's testimony was further evidence that, after failing to charge Clinton and his wife in the five-year Whitewater investigation, Starr's office plans to use Mrs. McDougal's trial to air the evidence he gathered against the first family.

This is what that evil man wants to do to me:

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Now we find out that Ken Starr's team is corrupt and did leak lies about Bill.

Name: Editors to Susan

email: We admire your courage. Go Susan. We love you.

Message:

But I do agree with their thoughts:

GO SUSAN! - FINALLY SOMEBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO GET RID OF KENN STARR! WE SUPPORT YOU! - NO Kenny-Kopy-Kats in 2000

Name: i love her

email:

Message: Now I don't get into torturing female witnessessss, though Marcia Lewis is cute, but I do like to be in the drivers seat and those handcuffs that susans been sporting for so long do perk my interest. But seriously, if Jesse Ventura could be governer, Sonny Boners wife be senator, cokehead Marion Barry be mayor, why couldn't Susan be a good senator? She would be a good advocate for citizens rights and keep them uptight suits from legislating that any position besides "missionary" is illegal.

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

You can read it in the news, and I see it in the courthouse.
Ken is trying to juggle this criminal case and the damaging revelations about his own office. The prosecutor has put me on trial, but it is his own office that is getting much of the scrutiny.

This is only the second day of my trial here, and Charles Bakaly, who became Starr's spokesman last spring after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, abruptly resigned yesterday. His resignation came after Starr asked the Justice Department to investigate Bakaly in connection with a news leak - a front-page story in The New York Times that said Starr had concluded the president could legally be indicted while still in office.

Things could not be better.

Name: Editors - Definition of Torture.

email: editors@hillary.org

Message:

My definition of torture is to interrogate an innocent person (Monica's mother) for days on end until she collapsed. All she did wrong was to be the mother of a child who had sexual relations with the president.

Perhaps some people on this forum still live in the days when torture was defined as taking out somebody's eyeballs or pulling their limbs off their bodies on a torture rack.

We live in a civilized world now , and we need to upgrade our definition of torture.

So, for the proponents of torturing Susan, if you don't want a Kenny-Kopy-Kat interrogating you or your innocent mother, sister, child, friend, for days on end until they collapse then don't support it for other people. And please don't respond with the typical self-righteous conservative mindset that your children, friends, etc., are so perfect they will do no wrong.

Another Definition of Torture is sending someone to prison for 18 months when others only spend a few days for the same crime.

Name: Susan

email:

Message: You want the definition of torture, well take a look at this !!!

Ken Starr did this to me and he can do it to you !

GO SUSAN! WE LOVE YOU!
Nobody has your courage!

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Now my words are public and you heard it first from me, not the Editors:

"Starr has targeted Susan McDougal because she has refused to cooperate with the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC), charging that it is conducting a politically motivated inquisition and that Starr's prosecutors have pressured her to supply false testimony against Bill and Hillary Clinton. She reiterated that stand in an interview just before the latest trial opened, declaring, 'Anyone who has done 18 months on a matter of principle wouldn't give in if it were 18 years. More than ever, I absolutely believe I did the right thing.' "

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Do you remember that sham of a trial last November over the Zubin Mehta thing ?
I was acquitted on all charges.
Well, in an extraordinary show of sympathy, two jurors from the panel which acquitted me in Los Angeles have flown to Little Rock to attend my trial and show their support.

Mark, my lawyer, and I have stated that the Zubin Mehta case was only brought by local prosecutors because of pressure from Starr's office. So, Starr is going down again on this one !

WASHINGTON POST
Susan McDougal (AP)
McDougal Indicted for Silence on Whitewater
By Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 5, 1998; Page A01

Susan McDougal, the former Whitewater business partner of the Clintons who has refused for nearly two years to testify before a grand jury about the president's financial dealings, was indicted yesterday by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr on charges of criminal contempt and obstructing his investigation.

The indictment, handed up by the Little Rock Whitewater grand jury just days before it is set to expire, includes a new allegation: that McDougal obstructed justice by refusing to answer questions about a cryptic handwritten note she wrote on a $5,081 check in 1983 that said "Payoff Clinton." McDougal was also charged with two felony counts of contempt for twice refusing to testify – in 1996 and again last month – despite a court-ordered grant of immunity.

The indictment could mean years more behind bars for the 43-year-old McDougal. She has already served 18 months for civil contempt for refusing to testify in Starr's investigation, is just starting a two-year term for a bank fraud conviction Starr won against her in 1996.

McDougal has refused to testify about the Clintons' financial dealings, she has said, because Starr is trying to force her to falsely implicate the president and the first lady. If she doesn't do so, McDougal insists, Starr will charge her with perjury.

Some legal experts called the indictment heavy-handed, and McDougal attorney Mark Geragos said of yesterday's indictment, "Not only is it unprecedented, it's shameful." Geragos argued that Starr "has got no business investigating anything to do with Whitewater," citing allegations that the independent counsel has a conflict of interest related to charges that cooperating witness David Hale was paid off by conservatives. Geragos dismissed the handwritten notation Starr's office produced about Clinton as "more of their nonsense, I'm sure."

The new charges against McDougal come as Starr wraps up the Arkansas phase of his long-running Whitewater inquiry. The grand jury in Little Rock is scheduled to expire Thursday, and yesterday's action follows by less than a week a new tax evasion indictment of Webster L. Hubbell, another Arkansan who has figured centrally in the long-running Whitewater investigation. However, Starr has another grand jury in Washington that will continue to hear Whitewater testimony.

Starr's prosecutors have been frustrated in their efforts to gain the cooperation of both Hubbell and McDougal as they investigate real estate dealings involving the Clintons and legal work that Hillary Rodham Clinton did for the McDougals' now-defunct savings and loan, Madison Guaranty, owned by Susan McDougal and her late husband, James B. McDougal.

Prosecutors have tried to learn whether the Clintons told the truth about those dealings under oath, including President Clinton's videotaped testimony at the McDougals' 1996 bank fraud trial. Clinton said then he had no role in helping Susan McDougal obtain a fraudulent $300,000 loan, part of which went to benefit the Whitewater Development Corp., which was jointly owned by the Clintons and the McDougals. Clinton also testified he never had any loans or financial dealings with Madison Guaranty.

Included in the indictment is a partial transcript of McDougal's appearance before the grand jury two weeks ago, during which prosecutors questioned her about the $5,081 check, drawn on her then-husband's account and signed over to Madison Guaranty. The memo section of the check had the notation "Payoff Clinton."

Prosecutors told McDougal they were interested in the check because it relates to Clinton's videotaped trial testimony. "Since your last appearance before the grand jury in September 1996, we have been able to obtain a copy of this check and confirm it's your handwriting on the check. You signed this check, correct?" a Starr prosecutor asked. When she refused to answer, one of the prosecutors said: "Mrs. McDougal, the reason we're asking you about this check, and we have more checks that we could show you if you'd like to see those."

"I'll see anything you got. I won't answer your questions," McDougal shot back.

The indictment said McDougal even refused to answer questions posed directly to her by several of the grand jurors, who tried to assure her that they, not Starr, would decide on the merits of her testimony.

Some criminal law experts said yesterday it was permitted but highly unusual to prosecute someone for criminal contempt after they have finished serving a civil sentence for the same refusal to testify. Said St. John's University law professor John Q. Barrett, "I don't understand why he would want his office to get bogged down in a criminal prosecution of her. In terms of leverage to get her testimony, which is really what Starr's eye needs to stay on, I don't see anything having leverage with this person. She just seems dug in. . . . Sometimes prosecutors do just run into that kind of thing and the thing to do is, with frustration, walk away." McDougal's brother, Bill Henley, told a TV interviewer she would never cooperate with Starr: "It wouldn't have mattered if the president of the United States personally had gone to Susan and begged her on his knees to speak to the grand jury."

McDougal is serving a two-year federal sentence for bank fraud, the result of her 1996 conviction in the bank fraud case brought by Starr against her, her late ex-husband and then-Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker. James McDougal subsequently became a cooperating witness until the time of his death two months ago; Tucker became a cooperating witness earlier this year.

Name: The Easter Bunny

email: for Susan Mcdougal

Message: First Ken Starr is a Gestapo like person. The Reboolicans are going to lose seats in the house and the US Senate. Why you ask? Because they are power seeking, white supremacists, power hungry ###@#%%#@$#$#.

They appeal to our vanity and greed. They lower taxes so the rich and wealthy get all the breaks while the rest of us fork over huge sums to Insurance Companies, Drug Companies and greedy hospitals, and their idiotic managed care policies.

The Republicans are always for the rich and they used to be for the farmers, but now are bible toting hypocrites like Henry Hyde that ughly adulterer.

Then there is that phoney Pat Robertson and his gang of KKK, excuse me CCC, right wingers who use abortion and skinhead Rush Limbaugh to tell lies and half truths.

But thanks to their botched impeachment attempts and take-no-prisioner attitudes they exposed themselves as wannabee Nazis with inneundo and slander and garbage they smear good politicians, both Republican and Democratic candidates so they will use religion and hypocricy to get more power over us.Sorry guys freedom of Religion, and freedom of speech, we got you nutty right wingers where we now what you stand for.

So all you stupid Conservatives who think the Wannabee Nazis headed by Jerry Foulmouth Falwell among others are better than old fashioned Democrats ask the Germans of the 1930's if they did well when they elected that conservative bunch in 1933.

We need universal health care and a general roll back on drug prices. Not this Moral Majority who turned out to be hypocrites like Mr. Livingston. He said I'm quitting and I'm a good guy for doing so. Baloney, Good Ole Larry Flynt caught you, you ole fakir. And Newt you self righteous %#^%^$^$^$# where is your contract for America now in the Ash heap llike Karl Marx's crazy lunatic ideas.

WE should tax this powerful Southern group the Non Profit CCC. And make Steve Forbes stop acting like a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Now we are gonna have Dan Quayle Mr. Family Values run with Elizabeth Dole with her Ugly hairdo run the Country. Are they for real? The Rebooblicans are through. I hope. and anyone who votes for them can't see the forest thru the trees.

What do the Republicans stand for: The rich get most of the tax breaks The drug companies continue to rape us, and Kenneth Starr gets to investigate Monica Lewinsky, a girl with a boyfriend on the side, who was an opportunist and a blackmailer. Barbara Walters really is this Journalism or Yellow Journal ism. Edward Murrow, if he were alive today would shake his head and say this not the news its gossip. Boone Arledge said don't give them real news give them Entertainment.

Ken Starr is a dweeb and Susan McDougal got a bum rap. Poor House managers, sorry but better luck next time as dog catchers. WE are not proud of Bill Clinton except the alternative bunch are wannabee Nazis who use Religion to fool very few people these days, Thank GOD.

Name: Last Visible Dog to The Easter Bunny

email:

Message:

Easter Bunny - I hate to break this to you but based on the current polls NONE of your statements are true. Currently the American people believe that the Republican party is the best party for solving problems, the Republican party beats the Democrat party in 5 out 7 categories, ALGORE is losing to the top two Republican contenders. The reality is the Republican will almost certainly win the White House in 2000 and will likely retain control of the House and Senate. The Democrat Party unfavorable rating is growing every day and now that the Democrats can no longer be the anti-Newt and anti-Starr party, they has no issues and all they can do is make fools of themselves like ALDORF, I mean ALGORE claiming that HE personally created the Internet. Sorry Democrats - your party is grasping defeat from the jaws of victory - the backlash did not happened and the Democrats overplayed their hand. Now should be a great time for Democrat in the polls (after the unpopular yet successful impeachment of Bill "weasel boy" Clinton) - but Democrats blow it and right now the Republicans are winning the hearts and minds of America and in the polls. Democrats get used to being the minority party!

As for the Contract with America - all but one item was voted on (the contract stated the items would be voted on and nothing more - passage was not guaranteed ) - over 80% of the Contract with America is now LAW and 6 out of 10 items on the Contract with America were used by Bill "weasel boy" Clinton as HIS accomplishments in the election of 1996. History will show the Contract with America was one of the most successful plans ever instituted by a political party (to the chagrin of the Democrats). BTW - the Contract with America was a set of goals for the first 100 days of the 1994 congress and that period ended nearly 4 years ago - so Easter Bunny, your statement about "where is the Contract with American now" proves your are an ignorant (hate-filled) moron that likes to spew profusely about subjects you do not understand. Understand what you are talking about BEFORE you spew forth.

-LVD [DREAM ON...LVD]

Name: Graduated High School

email: to Easter Bunny

Message: First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, pary membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary

Name: Wanda

email: Sim@paclink.net

Message: Hi anyone that is intersted in learning what the issue we have with the Clintons.

Myself personally I strongly believe Clinton should NOT have been impeached for the actions revolving around the Paula Jones trail (Monica sex scandal or you can call it lying under oath). I believe he should have never been taken to court in the first place as the supreme court ordered (very bad mistake made by the supreme court).

My belief is the allegations against the administration that has been brought up that are not being officially investigated are issues that are of extreme importance to this country and our people.

After reading many of the posts regarding these issues on many different sites, I am at a strong belief that it is the lack of justice being imposed on governmental officials doing wrong that is concerning us. This is not just Bush and Clinton that has done wrong. It is what we have in-store for us in the future if we do not investigate wrong doings made by our presidents. We see NO sign of Justice being done in any of these highly important issues.

For those people on the right remember something we would not have Clinton if it was not for Bush and his family. Bush’s father got Clinton started early on in his career. Also: Read these sites where Clinton got much of his money form.

This site is about an ex-DEA agent explaining how the CIA moved drugs for political gains starting way back in time. Most of his accounts where during the Reagan and Bush administrations. I am a libertarian(My opinion: drugs are a personal responsibility not the governments responsibility. As you can see drugs are being moved for political gains now. http://WWW.copvcia.com

This site is another DEA agent basically she is saying the same problem. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/latest.htm

This site is the most powerful political best researched site I have ever seen ANYPLACE on the internet about any political issue. Alamo-Girl deserves a lot of credit even if you have an issue with what she posted. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36a3fc1a63df.htm

Even if you look at these sites and say, “Hog wash”. Please do not think we are out to get anyone we believe much of this information is correct and are acting on this belief.

Name:

email:

Message: My definition of torture is to interrogate you for days on end until you collapsed. All you did wrong was to be the father of a child that had sexual relations with the president.

What in God's name are you talking about? Monica's father?? Monica's mother. Please get boned up on the events before you criticize Did they chain up the old man and beat the answers out of him or did they simply ask him questions surrounding Clinton's criminal activity that he might know about. Monica's mother was interrogated for two days straight until she collapsed. Want that to happen to your mother. Kenny-Kopy-Kats will get her if you don't start thinking.

We live in a civilized world now , Zippy, and we need to upgrade our definition of torture. So, Zippy, if you don't want a Kenny-Kopy-Kat interrogating you for days on end until you collapse then don't support it for other people. And please don't respond with the typical self-righteous conservative mindset that your children are so perfect they will do no wrong. Another Definition of Torture is sending someone to prison for 18 months when others only spend a few days for the same crime. Maybe you don't think prison is torture, but I definitely do. I don't think you would like it either.

Name: Nilesjo

email: Nilesjo

Message: Susan McDougal is a great actress and is trying to be a great martyr. By blaming that "tyrant Ken Starr" she deflects the focus from her REFUSAL TO TALK before a Grand Jury and feeds on the desperate NEED of the Left for a SYMBOL to demonize in order to mobilize opinion against those who would attack (even if justified) the cult leader, Bill Clinton. Assuming that Susan doesn't have anything derogatory to say about Clinton, why doesn't she just respond to the questions from the Grand Jury and say so? Then that's the end of it. Well, the logical common-sense analysis is that she DOES have knowledge of facts that will incriminate Clinton and she will continue to refuse to answer any questions because she doesn't want to "betray" him and she doesn't want to commit perjury in front of the GJ. And, of course, if she tries to hide behind the 5th Amendment Starr will just offer her immunity and compel her to answer. Starr is a legally constituted federal prosecutor and court officer and is operating under the criminal justice rules. Susan McDougal has answers that WILL incriminate the Clintons in criminal activity to defraud. She is like a trapped animal and will try everything she can to avoid providing facts that will lead to justice. MOST hostile witnesses dislike the prosecutor but that doesn't give them license to refuse to answer questions within a legally constituted process -- if it did, the rule of law would be seriously, perhaps mortally, wounded. For those of you who MUST have martyrs to your cause (what ever that may be), just continue to support St. Susan. Just allow yourself to IGNORE reason and just allow St. Susan to manipulate your natural tendency to ASSUME that its all about oppression by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and that terrible demon, Ken Starr. Those of us that CAN see the forest for the trees, understand that Susan is just basically a BAD person (albeit a sexy one) and that she is playing and end game to AVOID TELLING THE TRUTH in order to protect another BAD person. If she wins the LIES win and the TRUTH loses.

Name: Graduated High School

email: Awwww, ... poor little criminals

Message: When you are subjected to questioning (with your lawyer present no less) have a "breakdown" and cry "torture." Then editor and the liberal left will run to your protection, but be sure to make it clear that you are "pro choice" first (isn't rape a "choice," doesn't a man have a "right" to "control his own body?").

Name: Citizen

email:

Message: Easter Bunny: You spoke of the rest of us paying 'huge sums to Insurance Companies, Drug Companies and greedy hospitals ...' When I got my yearly bonus check this week, I discovered that the government had taken 39% of it. And I don't make anywhere near 100K. Yet my yearly health insurance costs are less than 3% of my salary. Now, what was that BS about who I'm paying 'huge sums'?

Name:

email:

Message:

From Reuter's Politics

"Although Mrs. Clinton has no direct ties to New York, the state has a liberal residency requirement for political candidates. Two out-of-state candidates have been elected to the Senate in the past 35 years, Democrat Robert Kennedy in 1964 and Republican James Buckley in 1970."

Name: Fan of Susan

email: harold@bestdesigners.com

Message: Susan, I have not been following your case closely enough to defend what others are saying about you, a state of affairs that I am about to remedy.

But one thing I do know for sure is that you are the only person in this whole drama that did not blab everything to everybody like Monica, Linda Tripp, George Stephanopoulos, Kenneth Starr, Broadrick, Flowers, Willey, the GOP, the media, and the minor folks, most of whom are members of the Conservative culture.

We live in an era where there is no trust and no respect for anyone in high office. How can any president run this country if he/she knows that his/her closest aides will sell every moment of their privacy for money, political power, or just to get attention. How can any president run this country if he knows that even if his aides do not blab they can be forced to blab or be tortured. How can any president run this country if the Secret Service can be forced to blab. There is no honor, no loyalty and no respect left for anyone. What an ugly culture we have become.

Whatever it is you have done, your determination to protect the president is an outstanding example of loyalty which has completely disappeared in our society. Marriages break up and each partner feels the need to blab to everyone in order to destroy their former spouse to whom they once declared undying love "until death do us part". Confessionals are big money.

We have come to a time in our history where only the bad stuff sells or gets attention, and in order to get that attention we must get worse and worse to top the others before us.

You are the only one who stands alone against the tide. You could make a deal with Starr, blab everything about the President and get millions of dollars for your book, just like Stephanopoulos and Monica, but you have chosen to go to prison instead.

I apologize for the ugly messages on this board that are written by the Conservative culture. They are not alone in this feeding frenzy of total exposure of somebody else's privacy and then total lies to top the exposure, but they are definitely leading the way. Forgive these fools for they know not what they do.

Of all the people to expose the President and First Lady, I think George Stephanopoulos bothers me the most. Here is a man who was brought into the inner sanctum. Brilliant, highly educated, top of the line, yet he also sinks to blabbing every private sacrosant thought of the institution of our presidency to the entire world, just like Kenneth Starr.

If you don't respect the man, at least respect the presidency, Kenneth Starr and George Stephanopoulos could not do it, but you did. And YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE. Had terribly sad for all of us.

My love and good wishes go with you Susan. You have many fans who love you. I wish more would come to this board and let you know that, but I know they are out there praying and cheering for you.

Name: Graduated High School

email: to Fan of Susan

Message: "If you don't respect the man, at least respect the presidency, Kenneth Starr and George Stephanopoulos could not do it, but you did." ... The current occupant of the Presidency does NOT RESPECT the very oath he took as President. He has violated that oath, under oath, in a court of law and by lying to the American people for over 8 months. Conservatives know the DIFFERENCE between the OFFICE and the PERSON in the office. Ken Starr is serving the role Government is meant to serve: enforce contracts (the law) and George Stephanopoulos, like many other former Clinton aides, can no longer stomach the blatant hypocrisy and contempt for the law and the American people that comes from the Clinton administration. Unlike you, we know what we do and why we do it. We know the difference between "the king is law," and "the law is king." Drop the HUSTLER magazine, turn off THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW and learn the difference between reality and propaganda.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug to Fan of Susan

email:

Message:

Gee, and I always thought you had to earn respect. How foolish of me...

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug

email:

Message:

Las Vegas Review-Journal
Sunday, March 14, 1999
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

COLUMN: RAFAEL TAMMARIELLO
Young Bill 'began telling stories and living a secret life'

Ted Rall, renegade and New York satirist, made 'em scream by suggesting Bill Clinton's not just a liar -- he's insane.

This president's pathologies are obvious: power-obsessed, sex addict; pathological liar.

This guy even lies about where he's from. Remember "The Man from Hope?"

Hope, hell. Clinton was born in Hope but his hometown is Hot Springs -- a tarpit of vice, the very image of the swinging Sodom Old Man Potter turned Jimmy Stewart's town into in "It's a Wonderful Life." William Jefferson "Billy" Blythe III is the man from Hot Springs -- Mafia hangout, gambling den, drug-central, whore haven -- where young Billy and his mom hung out in the ubiquitous bars. (Not like Vegas or anything.)

Read the rest of the article.

Name: Fan of Susan to Graduated

email:

Message: Because you are young you do not see the future implications of what you propose.

1. DEFILE THE PRESIDENCY (for good cause): Your first proposal is that we defile this presidency because it's bad, but act differently toward the next IF it's good. Unfortunately life does not work that way. The way we behave toward this presidency will be repeated in the next and the next and the next. Before Nixon we had great respect for the Presidency. We learned to defile Nixon, and consequently the presidency. Once having crossed that line we were on the famous "slippery slope" to hell. God knows where we will end up.

2. CONSERVATIVES KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICE AND THE PERSON: Unfortunately you have demonstrated quite the opposite. Conservatives have established, via the Supreme Court, that anyone from anywhere can sue the President for anything. That sets a very dangerous precedent in the future. What if George Bush Jr. becomes president and all his drinking buddies in his alcoholic days sued him for all kinds of wrongdoing.

I am going to assume that you are old enough to know what horrendous things alcoholics do and can't even remember what it was when they sober up. Are we going to witness one drunken bum after another suing George Bush for aggravated assult, lewd and lascivious behavior, or whatever? Are we going to witness dozens of bimbo eruptions claiming George molested them while he was in a drunken stupor?

Conservatives are very short sighted. They attack what is in front of them without seeing the big picture; without thinking about the future ramifications of their actions. A very good example is the Conservative attempt to destroy Clinton and ending up losing their own leaders instead.

3.KENN STARR BEHAVED APPROPRIATELY: Unfortunately you do not value our Constitutional Right to Privacy, or maybe you think that it's OK to invade some people's privacy because they are evil Democrats, but not when it concerns you or your friends and family or party because you are soooo moral! Or, maybe you are a typical self-righteous Conservative who claims to be perfect while all Democrats are immoral so the privacy laws will only affect those you hate and not those on your side.

I'm sure you have read many messages from Conservatives on this forum that claim to be so perfect that neither they, nor any members of their family, friends or associates can ever be guilty of wrongdoing so there's nothing to fear from Kenny-Kopy-Kats in 2000. In spite of notable revelations to the contrary they still hold those immature belief systems. Conservatives have a lot of growing up to do before we can trust them with running this country again.

Kenny also used torture and persecution to obtain information from witnesses. As has already been stated on this forum we do not want Kenny-Kopy-Kats in 2000. Probably because you are young you do not understand that Kenny-Kopy-Kats will sprout up everywhere if you don't take steps to curb that activity now, for your sake not Clinton's.

4.DEFILING THE MESSENGER: Perhaps it is because you are young, or maybe because you are just another ill-bred person, but YOU DEFILED ME. I am a messenger. Why is it important to defile me? Do you think you make your point with me when you defile me? Quite the opposite is true. I lose respect for you. Don't you know that already? I have never watched the Jerry Springer Show in my life and have only read Hustler a few times. Could you please explain to me what in my writings reveals to you that I am a fan of this form of sleazy sexual entertainment? You could not be farther from the truth yet you have chosen sexual slurs to defile me. Why do the Conservatives on this forum do this? Where do you get this mindset from. Why are you all so alike in this mindset? I am always amazed when a Conservatives writes intelligently on this Forum without attacking the opposition with sleazy sexual insults. This probably has something to do with your morality.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug

email:

Message:

Pardon the screwed up link above (too many Navigator windows open at once.) This one should work...

Name: Editors to Minglewood

email: FDIC

Message: Thank you for reporting on the FDIC going down in flames. That was great news.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug to Fan of Susan

email:

Message:

And another thing...

Conservatives have a lot of growing up to do before we can trust them with running this country again.

This from a person defending a Rapist/Perjurer/Adulterer in the White House and a Thief/Perjurer in the slammer in Arkansas. Puh-Leeeeeeeezzzz.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug to Editors

email:

Message:

Thank you for reporting on the FDIC going down in flames. That was great news.

OH MY GOD!!! THE FDIC went down in flames!!! Go to the bank and get all your money out now (or people like Susan will steal it and the Feds won't pay you back, with your own tax money)!!!

Couldn't resist ;}

Name: Editor to Zippy

email: Thank you for the article from the Las Vegas Review Journal

Message: Zippy,
As always you are a Guest of Honor on this Forum. Thank you for all the time and trouble you take to leave articles on our Forum. We appreciate your efforts more than you can know even though they usually oppose our point of view. What we like about you is your lack of insulting personal attacks, which, in turn, reveals your sincerity and generates heightened interest in the articles you leave here. Thank you for being a decent person.

I am having a problem with your last link to the Las Vegas Review Journal. I can't even get through to http://www.lvrj.com so maybe there is something wrong with the Internet connections in that area. I'll try later and fix your link if it is wrong.

Name: Editor to Zippy

email:

Message: Zippy, I just knew you were going to do that. I was too lazy to go back and write the exact referral, but at the same time I wanted to thank Minglewood for reporting the information: The FDIC's "Know Your Customer" . This proposed law went down in flames!!!

Name: Graduated High School

email: to Fan of Susan

Message: "Your first proposal is that we defile this presidency because it's bad, but act differently toward the next IF it's good." .... Excuse me, fan of Susan, but the ONLY PERSON who can defile the presidency is THE PERSON who is occupying the presidency. Ken Starr or myself can not defile the office we DO NOT HOLD, ONLY THE OCCUPANT OF SAID OFFICE CAN DEFILE SAID OFFICE (duh!). My morality does not change according to the calendar or who is in the White House. You defenders of Susan keep declaring that Monica's mother was "tortured" by Ken Starr. How absurd, are you her LAWYER, WERE YOU THERE? If her Lawyer let her be "tortured" then she should sue her lawyer for mal-practice. Regarding invading of Privacy, Bubba was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit and it was perfectly legal and relevant to ask questions about his predator sexual history. Let the courts decide whether or not Ken Starr has behaved appropriately, and so far they have. I CAN LIVE WITH whatever the courts rule on Ken Starr. In regards to future lawsuits against Presidents, I am not concerned, because once again, each case will have to be resolved on the basis of it's own merits. It is obvious that the Paula Jones case had merit because it uncovered a pattern of PATHOLOGICAL lying on the part of Bubba and his deluded "vast right-wing conspiracy" wife. I can not defile you, you do that all by yourself with your irrational double standard ramblings. I understand private property rights; I also understand oaths, perjury, obstruction of justice and stealing other people's money through bank fraud. When Susan gets out jail someday, you go ahead and buy the Arkansas real estate she will be selling. I know better.

Name: Information to "Education"

email:

Message: Bill Clinton had a TEAM of lawyers juring his Grande Jury deposition and was still caught lying his butt off!

However, even without a lawyer, one is not helpless. First, it always helps to tell the truth. Second, I am sure these grande Jury events are not without rules. Third, an overly zealous prosecutor would elicit sympathy from a witness. Everything I've heard was that Susan McDougal's grande jury panel was pissed as hell at Susan and thought her excuses were a crock.

Name: Graduated High School

email: Thanks for straightening me out

Message: Sorry about the lawyer in the grande jury questioning, I misunderstood the premise the "torturing" was referring to. Are we to now assume that the JUDGE was a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and went along with the TORTURING of a witness. Boy, this is even more incredible than what I was originally thinking. The JUDGE and the JURORS were in on this too, maybe they were all involved in the JFK assassination as well.

Name:

email:

Message:

Name: Question?

email:

Message: Is there a judge in a grand jury investigation?

Name: Susan on trial for "Criminal Contempt"

email: NEWSWEEK

Message: NEWSWEEK ON TRIAL Ken Starr's four-year investigation may be winding down, but he still has a busy trial schedule. Set to stand on various charges: Susan McDougal, March 8 (criminal contempt); Julie Hiatt Steele, March 30 (making false statements and obstruction of justice), and Clinton crony Webb Hubbell, June 14 (lying to bank regulators).

In the post-Monica age, it could be tough for Starr to get a favorable jury. Since his team last tried a case, in '96, his approval ratings have plummeted. Lawyers in his office know that their adversaries (all of whom deny the charges) will try to make him the issue, a tactic they'll guard against. "You're not going to see Starr in the courtroom, and they're going to make no reference to him," says a jury consultant who has advised Starr's team.

Meanwhile, Starr faces other problems, including a looming Justice Department investigation into his handling of the Lewinsky probe. He's firing back, questioning Justice's ability to conduct a fair inquiry. He's even enlisted support on Capitol Hill, dispatching his deputy, Jackie Bennett, to complain to GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch. The senator later publicly questioned Justice's "integrity." A Hatch aide says he didn't act in response to Starr's complaint.

Name: NEWSWEEK

email:

Message:

NEWSWEEK

Susan McDougal was jailed for refusing to testify about Whitewater. She'll go on trial next month on a criminal-contempt charge for refusing to testify before Starr's grand jury.

Name: Susan McDougal and Whitewater

email: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Read all about it!

Message: NEWSWEEK

Whitewater. Starr's prosecutors have long believed the story first told five years ago by Little Rock businessman David Hale: that, in 1986, Clinton pressured Hale to make a fraudulent $300,000 loan to Clinton's business partner Susan McDougal. Clinton flatly denied the charge when he testified at the 1996 trial of Susan and Jim McDougal, and Starr's prosecutors considered accusing the president of perjury. But the idea of including Whitewater perjury in the Lewinsky report was rejected because there were no credible witnesses to finger the president. Jim McDougal is dead, and Hale is a felon. So is the only other witness, Susan McDougal, who has refused to testify about the loan.

Meanwhile, there are new questions about Hale that may help the White House in its continuing campaign to attack Starr. An independent investigator has uncovered evidence that $8,800 of Hale's legal fees were paid by associates of conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife. Jay Bequette, the Little Rock lawyer who received the money, declined to comment, and a Scaife lawyer denied knowledge of the payment. But Hale's current lawyer, David Bowden, confirmed that Hale received the money as a "loan," though he denied it influenced Hale's testimony against Clinton.

Name:

email:

Message: By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With interest in her political and personal life soaring, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will go online Tuesday to answer questions -- about White House pets, her spokeswoman said Sunday.

Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to appear in a live ``chat'' session on America Online Tuesday at 10 p.m. EST, answering questions about her recent book, ``Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets,'' said spokeswoman Marsha Berry.

``The topic is the book,'' Berry said, ruling out any questions that have lately consumed Hillary-watchers, such as whether she will run for the U.S. Senate in New York, or the state of her marriage in the wake of President Clinton's sex-and-perjury impeachment scandal.

The book, published late last year, features photographs of White House pets Buddy the dog and Socks the cat, copies of children's letters to the pets and text by Mrs. Clinton.

The book could use a little plugging from its author -- sales have lagged behind her previous, hugely successful book, ''It Takes a Village.''

Internet bookseller Amazon.com ranks the Socks and Buddy book 9,574 on its list of current best-sellers, compared with the newly released memoirs ``All Too Human'' of former White House aide George Stephanopoulos, which headed the list, and Andrew Morton's book on Clinton paramour Monica Lewinsky, ''Monica's Story,'' which ranked seventh.

But Berry said the White House pets were a favorite topic among children. ``Whenever she goes to a school or something, it's always the question (topic) that brings kids out of their shyness,'' Berry said.

She said the book's publisher, Simon and Schuster, had been collecting questions submitted to AOL and would present selections to Mrs. Clinton Tuesday. The questions will be answered live through a moderator at the online service. AOL has about 16 million subscribers.

The Clintons have given few clues to Mrs. Clinton's political plans -- other than to say she is carefully considering a Senate run -- or the state of their relationship.

Mrs. Clinton's decision to cancel plans to travel with her husband to Central America last week and her absence from a weekend trip to dedicate the president's boyhood home in Arkansas fueled speculation the two were keeping their distance from each other. But the president late Saturday suggested otherwise.

Asked if Mrs. Clinton, who aides said stayed home to nurse a sore back, had wanted to go to Arkansas with him, Clinton told reporters while returning to Washington on Air Force One, ``Oh yeah, bad. She wanted to go to Central America. She wanted to go to this.''

Name: Graduated High School

email:

Message: OK, Ken Starr haters. I'm really trying to understand this whole "torturing" scenario. My understanding is that during Grande jury testimony, the Judge acts as a referee and the witness can leave the proceeding to consult with his/her attorney outside the courtroom (let me know if I error in any of this). I see this whole "torturing" idea as being counterproductive to Ken Starr. A prosecutor wants the jury "on his side." Why would a prosecutor alienate and risk "loosing" the jurors by "torturing" the witness, especially someone's mother. Also, the Grande jurors may ask questions as well, thus lengthening the proceedings. Did the jurors "torture" witnesses also? Sorry Ken Starr haters, this is sounding like an attempt to sell some Arkansas real estate and I'm not buying it. … Just to change the subject a little bit. Since Susan McDougal is soooo intelligent and soooo virtuous, I'm sure all her fans will be more than happy to give her your money for her to invest for you (maybe she can get 10,000% return like Hillary). This is not an unreasonable expectation if you truly believe what you are saying about her, put your money where your mouth is and prove your not being hypocritical.

Name: For Graduated High School

email: WASHINGTON POST (see more at top of this page)

Message: "Some criminal law experts said it was permitted but highly unusual to prosecute someone for criminal contempt after they have finished serving a civil sentence for the same refusal to testify." Said St. John's University law professor John Q. Barrett, "I don't understand why he [Starr] would want his office to get bogged down in a criminal prosecution of her. In terms of leverage to get her testimony, which is really what Starr's eye needs to stay on, I don't see anything having leverage with this person. She just seems dug in. . . . Sometimes prosecutors do just run into that kind of thing and the thing to do is, with frustration, walk away." (see top of this forum for more info)

Name: Editors to Graduated High School

email:

Message: I wish you were really serious about understanding this "torturing" scenario because it affects us all. Please read the posts from the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK to get a better understanding of what Kenn Starr is doing. Come on, I know you have the intelligence if you could just stop being facetious.

Do you understand that if you, an ordinary person, refused to answer questions in court you would probably be thrown into jail for a few days, but Susan goes to prison for 18 months and now Kenn Starr is trying to put her away FOR THE SAME CRIME???

I know you won't listen to us, but at least read what the experts have to say on this matter. What Kenn is doing is "cruel and unusual punishment" and that's unconstitutional. He is doing it to get Clinton by ANY MEANS including torturing Susan McDougal.

As you know we constantly read messages from Conservatives on this forum who truly believe that Kenny-Kopy-Kats would never affect them because they are soooo moral and perfect. This is nonsence. Philosophically and morally you should NEVER think that way. Please reconsider your position.

Name: Graduated High School

email: Nothing to hide.

Message: I would answer the questions and then go have lunch. Where is the judge? Where are Susan's attorneys? The idea that Ken Starr is in control of the judicial system just doesn't fly. I wouldn't try and protect anyone, Bubba is over 18 and can speak for himself, I wouldn't refuse to answer questions in order to protect Bubba. Sorry, but I just don't follow the logic of refusing to answer questions before a grande jury. The grand jury doesn't convict, just recommend that a trial take place. If it is unconstitutional what Ken Starr is doing, then have the court throw it out. The Washington Post article said what Ken Starr is doing is highly unusual, but then again, this is a highly unusual case.

Name:

email: Question for Graduated

Message: Lunch? It's dinner time in San Francisco. Do you live in Hawaii?

According to what we have read Susan is the ONLY person, besides Hubbell who can implicate Clinton. Starr wants so badly to get Clinton that he will stop at nothing, including violate our Constitutional right to privacy and our protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Nobody says Susan is Mother Theresa, but even the worst of criminals cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Even criminals have constitutional rights. We live in a civilized country.

You have made it clear that if you teamed up with your best friend from childhood and succeeded in a business partnership together, that you would turn states evidence against him in a shot to get yourself free and him in prison, even if he was the president. OK, most people would do that, but Susan will not implicate the president. She has served 18 months in prison and is prepared to go again, but she will not turn him in. SUSAN IS A RARE BREED. Most other people would turn in their own mother if it would let them off the hook. Sad world we live in. <

Name: Graduated High School

email: Do the right thing.

Message: I would have no ulterior motives other than to do the right thing. If my business partner were involved in bank fraud, I would do the right thing and cooperate with the grande jury. Where is the virtue in obstructing justice? Susan is a rare breed in that she obstructs justice, absolutely nothing to be proud of there. IF her constitutional rights are being violated, then answer the questions, have the court rule that her rights were violated and throw out her answers and the case. Again, to accept the victimhood premise, I would have to accept the idea that Ken Starr is in control of the judicial system and is single handedly violating her constitutional rights with the cooperation of the judge and Susan's own attorneys. I also have heard more scholared conservative commentators criticize the Independant Council Law and it very well may be a bad law, but it is what Bubba pushed for and got - the ultimate irony for old Susan.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug

email: (I'll be sorry for this in the morning but...)

Message:

You have made it clear that if you teamed up with your best friend from childhood and succeeded in a business partnership together, that you would turn states evidence against him in a shot to get yourself free and him in prison, even if he was the president. If my "best friend" and I (with whom I'd been carrying on an adulterous affair) managed to defraud a Savings and Loan out of a ton of money and I got nailed by the prosecutor (who may well be more interested in bigger fish) I suppose I might just cut a deal to save my own ass (since it was obvious that my former beau wasn't about to). Sure. (Can you say "Pay off Clinton"?) OK, most people would do that, but Susan will not implicate the president. As loyal as one of Gotti's boys. Impressive. She has served 18 months in prison and is prepared to go again, but she will not turn him in. Wait, "turn him in"? I thought he hadn't done anything. I thought that the evil Darth Starr was just trying to get her to lie. SUSAN IS A RARE BREED. I'll give you that one. Most other people would turn in their own mother if it would let them off the hook. Fortunately, most of us law abiding types don't have to worry about that. Sad world we live in. Yeah, any place a Rapist/Adulterer/Perjurer/Communist Chinese Sympathizer/Egomaniac/Abortionist can be president and has poll numbers this high, that's a sad world...

Name: Graduated High School

email:

Message: Ok, one last post for today, technically speaking, the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution. I don't have the right to beat you up in the privacy of my own home or rape in the privacy of my own vehicle, etc. I actually live in the midwest and have that pathetic socialist Paul Wellstone for a senator so its time to go to bed and earn my bread in the morning.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug (in defence, sort of, of ControlGirl)

email:

Message:

OK, OK, I don't always agree with her positions and her tantrums can get a bit tiresome BUT she makes one good point: Deleting a post is fine (heavy handed at times but fair), Adding comments to a post is fine as long as it's obvious they were added by the Editors, but when you delete part of a post as to change it's meaning I must protest. That just ain't right. It presents the poster as someone different than they are. It's, well, an invasion into our privacy (kind of). We are who we are and for the "controllers of the information" to modify the evidence of that "who we are" just smacks of "1984". I'm not wording this very well but I think you get my drift.

Here comes Monday, I'll need my rest, Ta...

Name: IOSIF&MANYA SIGAL

email: VZLOT@MSN.COM

Message: IOSIF&MANYA SIGAL 7509 Larchmont Dr.
Dallas, TX, 75252
Email: VZLOT@MSN.COM Phone: (972) 732-7927
March 14 1999
Attn: FUTURE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA
HILLARY CLINTON
DEAR HILLARY!
We came in the USA just 2 months ago from Russia. But yet in Russia we was informed about your compassion and attention to people problems. Like outstanding politician and great woman You take active part in fortune a lot of people, support them and we implore you to help us. Almost two years ago our daughter and her family immigrated to the United States with the refugee status. After that We applied for the political refugee status from Russia (Case No.WP-246790).

On July 8, 1997 we had an interview at US Embassy in Moscow. During this interview we provided a lot of anti-Semitic events and circumstances in our life. Her are just a few of them:

1. After graduating with honors from the Medical School Manya Sigal, was forced to move thousands of kilometers away from her family to a small town with extremely difficult ecological situation caused by three large chemical plants. She has spent the rest of her lives in this town(Chapayevsk, Samara Region) because being Jewish did now allow her to find any other place to live and work. From her first day on the job to the day of her retirement Manya worked as a regular hospital physician because this town was classified by the Soviet (currently Russian) Government as a "regime area" due to the two military plants located within its borders. Therefore, Jewish people could not occupy leading or important positions.
2. In 1941,at the beginning of the World War II, Iosif Sigal, 17 years old at the time was forced to run from the Ukraine territory occupied by Nazi Germany. His entire family (parents, sisters and brothers) were shot by the Nazi troops just for being Jewish. Having made it to Russia, Iosif entered a military college. During registration he put his nationality as "Ukrainian", because being a Jew who escaped from the occupied territory, he would definitely be repressed and prosecuted in the years of the "Stalin Rule and Cult." Having graduated from the military college he served as a military defense guard (forces protecting military sites) and was later dismissed from service as a reserve with the rank of a Captain. All this time he was forced to disguise his nationality, because he would be immediately dismissed from military service and our family would remain destitute with no means of survival. After the dismissal he tried to reinstate his birth certificate, but every time was given a refusal due to destruction of archives during the WWII. Only in 1993 he was finally able to receive a copy of his birth certificate.
3. Our family was always active in causes against anti-Semitism in Russia. We observe Jewish customs and holidays and they have raised our children with deep respect and love for our people and heritage. Therefore, our family had many difficult moments, some in the form of direct threats of punishment, anti-Semitic slurs and threats to our life and well-being. We got threatening letters, heard a lot of threats and insults from neighbors and coworkers. These threats especially increase after daughter’s family departure to the United States. They are being openly told: "Don’t desecrate the Russian soil, go away to money-hungry children in America, otherwise we will kick you out by force." Nine years ago we lost our son, who died in a hospital due to clearly expressed anti-Semitic treatment of him by the Russian doctors.

For reasons absolutely unclear for us after interview in the US Embassy in Moscow we were granted a "parolee" status. Two reasons were presented
- The events, actions and surrounding circumstances set forth by you in your application and developed during the interview do not constitute a credible basis for concern about the possibility for persecution within the meaning of United States immigration law, as amended, for category cases.
- Your account of events, actions, procedures, and policies which you assert involves persecution or a credible concern thereof is not consistent with what is known and accepted as actual conditions, policies or practices in your country of origin.
It looks like absolutely nonsense because:
1. Our daughter’s family always lived as one family with us and it got refugee status just one year before our interview (almost same events and actions were introduced by them and admitted like a credible basis for danger of persecution ).
2. Anti-Semitism always was mostly popular in Russia. But sometimes Russian Nationalism activity is lower (like in the first years of Russian independence because Jewish businessmen invested in Russian economy) and sometimes is the highest (like in the last few years when Russia is in deep crisis). Now you can see typical situation, when communist leaders and part of congressmen openly call to bit and kick out Jewish population. We can show just small part of Russian newspaper’s articles which support anti-Semitic actions of Russian Nationalist leaders. Even "The Dallas Morning News 11/30/98 and other American newspapers reflecte anti-Semitic situation in Russia. We submitted appeal to US Embassy in Moscow to regain justice and change our status from "parole " to "refugee". Last year our state (Samara) congressman general Albert Makashov became the leader of Russian anti-Semitic movement , and situation in our region became very dangerous for Jewish. We got information from US Embassy that our appeal should be envisage at least in a year. For this reason we were forced to cancel our appeal and our daughter’s family executed Affidavit of Support. But they recently (two years ago) arrived in the US, just started new life and their financial opportunities are very limited. We came in U.S. at 01/06/99. Manya is 72 years old and Iosif is 75 years old. Our health was disestablished by life’s years under Communist regime We thank the God for opportunity to spent the end of our life together with our children and grandchildren. But they can not give us adequate Financial Support especially for health expenses. We hope that you can help us to regain justice and to get the benefits same like other Russian senior immigrants, to adjust our immigration status from "parolee" to "refugee" or equivalent status.
With our prayers and hope
Sincerely
Manya Sigal - Alien # A- 71131874
Iosif Sigal - Alien # A- 71131875
Translator: Vadim Zlotnikov

Name:

email:

Message:

Name: Editors to Citizen

email:

Message: If we deleted you it was not because of an intelligent statement. It was probably because you had to tack on some insulting and demeaning remark, either about us or Liberals in general. If you cannot state your case without insulting us you get deleted. We like civilized discourse and you should too.

Name: K-2 Buck time

email: kevalspicemancjhotmail@com

Message:

'How is the white rose coming along? 'how is, "Bill" and "Chelsea" and your self; 'here is (A0 little of something for you; 'how is, "Leyla Zana" here is (A) little somthing, for, "you" and, "Bill" and, "Chelsea" and, your, "self" (Hebrews 11:29,30,31) (James 2:25,26) (Hebrews 12:2,14,(26) "Jehovah God" needs every, "one" centring around, this, (Matthew 28:18,19,20) !!now for now!!

Name: r n. thomasson

email: rnthomasson@yahoo.com

Message:

Dear Mrs. Clinton: Even though I am a Republican, I believe that you would make a strong senator. I know that you would stand up for your beliefs, and that is what Washington needs. I wish your husband had not been so weak. After seeing the interview with Lewinsky, I believe she took advantage of your husband. She saw him as a tool to get what she wanted, and she took advantage of it. Whoever heard of showing off your underwear as being flirtatious. What she did was wrong. Again, do consider running for public office. America needs a strong voice, and you would make a good one.

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Now my words are public and you heard it first from me, not the Editors:

"Starr has targeted Susan McDougal because she has refused to cooperate with the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC), charging that it is conducting a politically motivated inquisition and that Starr's prosecutors have pressured her to supply false testimony against Bill and Hillary Clinton. She reiterated that stand in an interview just before the latest trial opened, declaring, 'Anyone who has done 18 months on a matter of principle wouldn't give in if it were 18 years. More than ever, I absolutely believe I did the right thing.' "

Name: to Susan

email:

Message: Your statement is interesting, yet inconsistent with Starr's past actions. Many people have given favorable testimony to Clinton, yet Starr has brought no charges unless he had substantial evidence proving perjury, such as a soiled dress. Even the Arkansas grande jury panel, made up of ordinary citizens, did not accept her excuse.

BTW, that principle Susan McDougal speaks of may simply be she doesn't want to tell incrimination evidence. Not much of a principle.

Name: i love her

email:

Message: Boy you guys have ants in your pants! Why so emotional? Its just so simple, Susan did a bad thing and doesn't want to go to jail for it so she won't talk. Even if she got immunity to talk, she won't because shes got the Monicas for Bill and believes even more now that Bill will be waiting for her with open arms after Hillary leaves him. Starr is bent on getting her to talk because all he cares about is getting Bill. Thats a no-no. He needs to leave her alone because if he doesn't have a case without her testimony, her testimony ain't gonna help in the eyes of a real jury. I predict that after all this is over, you will see Susan in some high profile position somewhere. She is paying her dues now but she's gonna make a comeback. Someone in this forum claimed they were a "libertarian" and kept droning on about some drivel that I couldn't follow. Werent libertarians the ones that funded Paula skank jones and isn't Kenny a libertarian? I wish Paula would talk to Susan about how to do a good makeover. Even after her nose job she still looks like a witch. Susan really changed how she looked while in prison. She went from looking like a fat old hippie to a truly bodacious babe without spending all the money Paula spent to come up to hag level. I feel bad for Hillary but I think Susan is going to be tight with Bill in a few years. Shes earned it. Anyway, if Hillary really has a bad back, you know shes not putting out like she used to. If Hillary decides to not run for office, I think she should become president for NOW or something like that. Some of those chicks are pretty hot.

Name: i love her

email:

Message: Well there you go. You can't argue with the facts. Ultra-rights suck. I think I summed it up nicely.

Name: i love her

email:

Message: Unfortunately, I knew Tinky Winky was gay long before falwell mentioned it. They have been having the gay tinky winky debate in england for years. Still, I'm not much of a fag worshipper but I think its great that they let lesbians kiss on TV. I like the Xena gabriell thing they got going on. Okay, it is Masterpiece Theater but that kinda highbrow crap is for the conservatives to feel superior to everybody else.

Name: from http://www.rutherford.org/about-main.asp

email: in response to liberal hate speech

Message: "When founding The Rutherford Institute, my goal was to create an organization that would defend people who were persecuted or oppressed without charging them for such services. The Rutherford Institute exists to ensure that people are treated fairly in the courts and are free to express themselves without fear."

—John W. Whitehead President and Founder The Rutherford Institute

Name:

email: refuting more liberal hate speech

Message:

Notable Cases in the History of The Rutherford Institute
Institute attorneys fight for the constitutional and human rights of men, women and children who are discriminated against or persecuted for their beliefs. Operating under John Whitehead's philosophy that "liberties are all interdependent; we are not free anywhere if someone in the world is still persecuted, oppressed or enslaved," the Institute continues to monitor and respond to those in need of assistance, nationally and internationally.

The following are a sampling of cases The Rutherford Institute (TRI) has handled or is currently handling:

Weinstein v. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff: Weinstein, a Jewish inmate, was denied kosher meals. Some claims voluntarily dismissed, lawsuit in discovery stage.

Decyk v. Delaware River and Bay Authority: Client was subjected to verbal assault, harassment and false accusations of theft and dishonesty which ultimately resulted in suspension when his supervisor found out he was gay. Litigation is ongoing.

Sternberg et al. v. Fletcher, et al.: The clients' civil rights were violated when zoning ordinances were enacted to exclude Orthodox Jews from worshiping in residential areas. Court granted relief and permanent injunction against the village.

Watts v. Howe Public School: Four special education students were forced into a shower and smeared with feces from diapers as part of a lesson on slave ships. Litigation is on-going.

Doe v. East Stroudsberg School District, et al.: Pennsylvania school district forced more than 50 sixth-grade girls to undergo gynecological exams without informed parental consent and against the girls' wishes. Litigation is ongoing.

Montalvo v. Radcliffe: Luciano Montalvo's 14-year-old son was not allowed to enroll in a karate class because he was HIV positive. TRI attorneys are working on the appeal.

Jones v. Clinton: Paula Jones brought a suit for sexual harassment and sexual discrimination against President Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas. A TRI affiliate attorney argued before a three-judge panel in St. Paul, Minn., that Mrs. Jones' suit should not have been dismissed because considerable evidence supported her claims that Mr. Clinton sexually harassed her. A decision is anticipated in a few months.

Financial Status/Guidelines
Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

Name: More where the Rutherford Institute fights Sexual harassment

email: Given the White House and NOW have forsaken these victims

Message: FIGHTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT

LaShonda Davis v. Monroe County School District

The Rutherford Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of LaShonda Davis, an elementary school student, who during her fifth-grade year in Monroe County, Georgia, suffered repeated verbal and physical sexual abuse by a fellow student. Despite many complaints to her teachers and administrators, school officials never disciplined the abusive student. The Institute's brief urges the Court to protect students from sexual harassment by allowing parents to sue a school administration that "intentionally and knowingly" disregards repeated vicious harassment by a fellow student, causing the victim to suffer emotional harm and reduced academic performance.

Name: i love her

email:

Message: I'm sorry, I spent my last fiver on a pack of smokes. I am now okay with the Ruthorfords. What mrs. Ruthorford look like? I still don't like them utra-right-wingers.

Name:

email:

Message: Looking for some new investments? .....you may want to consider the following before you invest:

The U.S. Treasury has just announced that it will sell three new types of bonds:

1. The Al Gore bond, which has no interest. 2. The Monica Lewinsky bond, which has no maturity And... 3. The Bill Clinton Bond, which has no principle.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug for "Education for i love her"

email:

Message:

Please identify each of the Ten Commandments you find impossible to live with and explain why you feel that way. (There are a couple I am not so sure are relevant to my life as a non-Christian. However, I share a great many of the moral and ethical beliefs with my Christian brothers and sisters. Do you?)

You Christian Bashers need to think a minute about just how different your views really are from those you bash. We have a Constitution that absolutely guarantees that there will never be a State Church. Chill the $^#%# out already. Should we remove all laws regarding Murder just because there is a Commandment forbidding it? Get a freaking grip. This country was founded (primarily) by White Christian Males and the system they came up with was founded on their beliefs. So far, in my humble opinion, it seems to have served us well.

You may think that Christians are the enemy. You may think effective, law abiding prosecutors are the enemy. But the real enemy is ignorance. An ignorant people are soon enslaved by their government under the guise that they will be protected and cared for. An educated people see this for what it is: Slavery.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
   - Sir William Drummond

Name: Wee-Willey-Jeff

email:

Message: Okay, okay, I "highjacked the booty", get off my case, Juanita, you ingrate! Don't you know what I've done to, er, for women? Don't you know how much love I've shared?

Name: Susan

email:

Message:

Do you remember that sham of a trial last November over the Zubin Mehta thing ?
I was acquitted on all charges.
Well, in an extraordinary show of sympathy, two jurors from the panel which acquitted me in Los Angeles have flown to Little Rock to attend my trial and show their support.

Mark, my lawyer, and I have stated that the Zubin Mehta case was only brought by local prosecutors because of pressure from Starr's office. So, Starr is going down again on this one !

Name:

email:

Message: TOP BUMPER STICKERS IN WASHINGTON D.C.

HONK! If you had sex with the President.

One More Whore And We Get Gore.

My President Fooled Around with Your Honor Student.

Jail to the Chief.

If his private life doesn't matter, let him date your daughter.

Save the President: Legalize Perjury.

Clinton: Our Nation's Fondling Father.

Name: Zippy the Wonder Slug to Susan

email:

Message:

So, Starr is going down again on this one !

Interesting choice of phrases. A Freudian could make a lot of that one...

Name: WARNING

email:

Message: WARNING-WARNING-WARNING-WARNING

The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia announced today that the President of the U.S. has proven that you CAN get sex from aides. Warning!!!

Name:

email:

Message: Testimony Resumes in McDougal Trial

Associated Press
Monday, March 15, 1999; 1:25 p.m. EST By Pete Yost

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- One former prosecutor in Kenneth Starr's office testified today that Whitewater investigators never asked Susan McDougal to lie for them and stressed in conversations with her and her lawyers that ``we want the truth.''

Testifying on the third day of Mrs. McDougal's trial on charges of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice, Amy St. Eve responded to accusations by Mrs. McDougal's legal team that prosecutors had demanded that she falsely implicate President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in wrongdoing.

In August 1996, the time of the alleged incident, Mrs. McDougal faced sentencing after being convicted of four felonies in a fraud trial. Her lawyer, Bobby McDaniel, had contacted Starr's office to ask what prosecutors could do for her if she cooperated.

Mrs. St. Eve testified that McDaniel wanted to know who prosecutors wanted her to testify against, but that Starr's office refused to give names. Mrs. St. Eve said prosecutors purposely did not specify the Clintons because they were concerned that the McDougal camp would then ``spin'' an incorrect account of their conversation with the McDougal legal team.

Mrs. McDougal's lawyers have said Starr wanted her to lie and that she feared being charged with perjury if she didn't tell prosecutors what they wanted to hear.

Mrs. McDougal, convicted of fraud in a Whitewater-related trial in 1996, has refused to testify to a Whitewater grand jury under subpoena by Starr's office.

Her refusal resulted in the charges of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice for which she is now on trial.

In testimony Thursday, an FBI agent linked a $27,600 loan in Clinton's name to a fraudulent $300,000 loan to Mrs. McDougal 3 1/2 years later.

Whitewater figure David Hale says he was pressured by Clinton to make the $300,000 loan. Clinton denies Hale's allegation and says he knows nothing about the $300,000 loan.

The $27,600 loan from the McDougals' savings and loan is important because Clinton testified in 1996 that he never borrowed any money from the financial institution. Three months after the president's testimony, Jim McDougal tipped off Starr's office to the $27,600 loan.

Name:

email:

Message: Liberals, this one is gonna sting:

WALKING THE WALK

Salon
March 15, 1999 David Horowitz

For fair use

Only the "moral majority" has the courage to walk away from politics.

In the aftermath of the Senate trial of the president, the nation has been struggling to "move on," to put the scandal and the partisan standoff over the impeachment process behind it and to get on with the political business at hand. Both left and right have stakes in moving forward, particularly as a new election cycle approaches. With a few exceptions, the consensus on both sides reflects this desire. Nonetheless, closure is not a foregone conclusion.

One distraction has been the testimony of Juanita Broaddrick, previously known as Jane Doe No. 5, whom the president allegedly raped in an Arkansas hotel room 20 years ago. Another is Monica Lewinsky's TV appearance and the publication of her gossipy book. Both have poured fuel on old fires.

Some suicidal Republicans, Bill Kristol most prominent among them, have called for new congressional investigations into the Broaddrick charges. In a Weekly Standard cover editorial that asks, "Can't we just move on?" Kristol throws down this regrettable gauntlet: "The only honorable answer to the question is no." Democrats, on the other hand, have responded to the new charges with an equally familiar posture -- agnostic attitudes toward the allegations themselves coupled with pleas to bury the whole mess, so that once again they appear, as a group, as partisan defenders of the reprobate himself.

The real problem underlying this stasis is that none of the major players really want to examine the events of this deeply troubling year in a way in which they would have to admit where they went wrong.

Mercifully, one group has actually begun to do just that, and, as unlikely to Salon readers as this may sound, it is the Christian right. In a reaction triggered by the impeachment failure, several leaders of the Christian political community have begun to discuss whether religious conservatives should now withdraw from the political process altogether. In a stunning confession of misjudgment, Paul Weyrich -- the man who gave the Moral Majority its name -- has announced that his movement's 25-year political effort has been based on an assumption he now realizes was an error. This is the assumption that the majority of the American people share his moral outlook. Weyrich puts it this way: "If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office months ago."

This is certainly correct, and refreshing. (Would that more politicians had the courage to admit publicly they were wrong!) Weyrich's view of his political failure and of America's unreceptive attitude toward his moral viewpoint is quite stark. "We got our people elected. But that did not result in the adoption of our agenda. The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture. The culture we are living in becomes an ever-wider sewer. In truth, I think we are caught up in a cultural collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that it simply overwhelms politics."

Weyrich is certainly wrong about America. In the popular culture, it's the year of romance ("Shakespeare in Love") and duty, honor, country ("Saving Private Ryan"). As for the civic culture, every social indicator Bill Bennett and other conservatives have used to describe its downward arc through the era of liberal irresponsibility is currently headed in the right direction. Crime rates, teenage pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births are on the decline. Combine that with full employment and it would be more appropriate to say that things haven't been better for a long time. Only someone attached to an irrecoverable past, and therefore hostile to change as such, could react so negatively toward a culture that is doing all right by any reasonable measure.

But Weyrich is correct about religious conservatism like his. In fact, he is right about religious politics across the board. One of the most enduring negative consequences of the '60s "revolution" was the injection of chiliastic ambitions into the normal political culture. The utopian idea of a "liberation" that would encompass both the personal and the social has roots not only in Karl Marx and the Paris Commune, but in Martin Luther and the Puritan settlement. "The personal is political," a '60s slogan that originated with the feminist left, could just as well describe the moral aspirations of the Christian right. Moreover, it could easily stand as a summary statement of the attitudes that created the impeachment debacle. "The great debates in American politics," according to Christian candidate Gary Bauer, "end up being essentially moral debates." In his current stump speech, Bauer likes to compare the anti-abortion crusade to Abraham Lincoln and the anti-slavery struggle. It is, he cries, "the soul of the Republican Party." In fact, the abortion issue is not the soul of the Republican Party but rather its most divisive issue. In comparing abortion to slavery, moreover, Bauer conveniently overlooks the fact that the slavery issue was too morally divisive to be resolved by the political process. It took a bloody civil war to do that. If civil war is what Gary Bauer wants, he should be prepared to say so and to recognize his brotherhood with other radicals of the past, including the '60s activists who used that identical analogy to identify (and legitimize) their war with America. This is not the voice of responsible politics and has no place in a pluralistic polity, let alone a party that aspires to be "conservative."

Everyone who subscribes to the idea of American pluralism thereby accepts the idea that there are limits to what politics can accomplish, and to what is proper advocacy in a democratic society. Democracies work through coalitions, achieved through compromises that are both moral and political. Compromise is the condition of civil stability and peace. To articulate what is, in effect, the political equivalent of a call for civil war in a democracy like ours is nihilistic and destructive. The fundamental premise of pluralism is that morally incompatible communities agree to live with each other and respect their differences, and work together through political compromise.

That is why the new sober turn in religious conservatism is to be welcomed. The religious right has contributed greatly to the renewed public sense of responsibility and accountability in America over the last few decades (a fact the secular culture seems incapable of acknowledging). But now several of its leaders are beginning to acknowledge that the movement may be approaching the limits of what it can hope to achieve politically.

Paul Weyrich concedes that the majority of Americans do not share his values and, unlike Bauer, accepts that the political agendas of a democracy are necessarily circumscribed by the shared values of its constituencies. Those who are unhappy with those values must turn to avenues other than politics for the answers they seek. Moral goals can be achieved only by persuading a majority that those goals are right. And politics, which is an arena of moral compromise, does not provide the best means for accomplishing that task.

A new book by two former leaders of the Moral Majority makes the point clearly: "Those who are looking in whole or in part to the government to correct the problems of America are looking in the wrong place." As one of the authors explained to a reporter for the New York Times, "Moral transformation will come one person at a time, one family at a time, one street at a time, one community at a time. It will not come from the government." This is exactly right, and political moralists on both sides of the aisle (including the sin-taxers in the White House who want to save citizens from their bad habits) would do well to heed it. The failure to heed it is what led to the political fiasco of the impeachment process.

Now that the evidence is in, few people would deny that President Clinton is morally corrupt and that his corruption has had serious consequences for his office and for the general welfare of the American people. What could have been done to deal with this problem and how was it botched? These are critical questions because it is the manner in which the corruption of the presidency was dealt with on all sides that lies at the heart of the present impasse.

In the first place it is important to recognize the origins of the problem in the president's own response to the exposure of his behavior. Once this happened, the president should have acknowledged that he had compromised his office and his own ability to fulfill his responsibilities. Then he should have resigned. He should have resigned not because he was morally impure or exceptionally dishonest (although he was both), but because of the damage that would inevitably ensue to the nation and his party if he decided to stay. (That was, after all, why Nixon stepped down when he did, instead of taking the fight to the bitter end.) Unfortunately, neither his responsibility to party or country seems to have mattered to Clinton, who often seems to exhibit certain classic sociopathic traits.

Absent a presidential conscience, the leaders of the Democratic Party should have stepped into the vacuum and attempted to persuade Clinton to leave. Once again, there is a parallel with Nixon. It was Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker who finally informed Nixon it was time to leave. Had Democrats followed their example and joined the chorus of 150 American newspapers who had called on Clinton to resign, Clinton's departure would have been almost inevitable. Had he still refused to resign, he then would have been impeached and removed by a truly bipartisan vote.

That didn't happen, however. Instead, Democrats went into a defensive mode in which they lost all connection to any discernible principle other than partisan political interest. (It is only one of the many bizarre aspects of these events that while they marched in a remarkable lockstep, Democrats were able to pin the "partisan" label on their Republican opponents.)

Given the resistance of the president and his party to an appropriate remedy, the president's prosecutors and political opponents responded with a series of miscues that greatly compounded the already existing crisis.

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr, to pick the most important offender, should never have entered the murky waters of the Paula Jones case in an attempt to make his own against the president. The sexual harassment law that allows prosecutors to probe the intimate personal histories of defendants is a brainchild of the moralists of the left. In particular, it is the work of the same feminists these events have discredited by slamming them up against a human complexity that remains forever out of reach of their ideological catch phrases. The bottomless probing into the emotional quicksand of human relationships is the very stuff of "sexual McCarthyism." It is a pursuit that conservatives above all should find both dangerous and abhorrent.

Name:

email:

Message:

It is true that, as Republicans claimed, the president lied under oath. But it is also true, as the Democrats maintained, that the lies were about sex and that the law, as the saying goes, is sometimes an ass. Particularly a law devised by radical feminists to ensnare demonized males. What Clinton's lies revealed about his lack of character is one thing. Whether the crime he was shown to have committed actually merited his removal is quite another. This question is now moot, because the House Republicans failed to convince the American public that it was.

The impeachment process is a political process, not a legal or moral exercise. For all their political courage and for all their concern for constitutional principle, the House Republicans and the Republican Party failed in the only political task that really mattered: persuading the American public that the president should be removed. Therefore, the appropriate course for them was to concede the terrain, as Paul Weyrich has done: to admit defeat. They could have done this after the November elections sent a strong message as to where the American people stood: They did not believe their president; they were pretty well convinced he had committed a crime; they did not want him removed. Instead, Republicans pushed the process where it could not go and inevitably came up short. This effort won them respect from the rank and file convinced that the president should be impeached and gratified to see their party stand up for principle. But it also wasted precious political capital and precious months of political time.

Now that the impeachment process is over, some conservatives don't want to move on and are calling for renewed investigations into the Broaddrick allegations. But if the last year has taught us anything, it's that these calls and allegations should be ignored. Disturbing though the claims of Juanita Broaddrick may be, they are irrelevant to the political process and should be disregarded by those who have a responsibility to govern. The reason is simple. No one will ever know what happened between Broaddrick and Clinton in that hotel room, and no one can assess how it affects the president's conduct of his political office now.

Whatever happened to Juanita Broaddrick happened 20 years ago. It was not reported then and she herself has lied about it since, under oath. Even the courts -- which are the appropriate venue for establishing the truth or falsehood of such charges -- recognize the extreme difficulty of establishing facts so long after the event by imposing a statute of limitations (which the Broaddrick incident has already exceeded). The political process, beset by partisan agendas and lacking even a jury insulated from the defendant, is certainly incapable of doing do so.

Without the possibility of ascertaining the truth, a congressional investigation would be just another partisan smear campaign similar to the Democrats' successful campaign to remove Sen. Bob Packwood. (The fact that feminists have begun to rally to Broaddrick's cause -- now that the president who champions their political agendas can no longer be removed -- should be a caution to Republicans who entertain these ideas. Sometimes, who your allies are does tell you something.)

This entire destructive course in America's political life began, of course, with the most disgraceful episode in the history of American liberalism -- the public lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas seven years ago over the unproved and unproveable allegations of a probably spurned and certainly spiteful woman seven years earlier. One of the chief lessons of the Clinton scandal is that the Anita Hill era is over. Another should be: Good riddance.

SALON | March 15, 1999

Name: LVD

email:

Message: The above article is one of the most lucid summations of the last year I have read.

Name:

email:

Message: Hillary's Resume For NY Senate (my title)

The Progressive Review
A Compilation for Late 70's till Today by Sam Smith and his Team

A Few Of Hillary's Greatest Hits

The Progressive Review

A Compilation from Late 70's till today.

In the late 1970s, the Clintons and McDougals buy land in the Ozarks with mostly borrowed funds. The Clintons get 50% interest with no cash down. The plot, known as Whitewater, is fifty miles from the nearest grocery store. The Washington Post will report later that some purchasers of lots, many of them retirees, "put up houses or cabins, others slept in vans or tents, hoping to be able to live off the land." HRC writes Jim McDougal, "If Reagonomics works at all, Whitewater could become the Western Hemisphere's Mecca." More than half of the purchasers will lose their plots thanks to the sleazy form of financing used.

The McDougals will be among a number of close HRC's friends and business associates who will end up in jail. Others include her law partner Webster Hubbell and financial middle man David Hale.

Two months after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

Hillary Clinton makes a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal that involves taking advantage of the FCC's preference for locals, minorities and women. The franchise is almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.

Jim McDougal tries to prevent state agencies from shutting down his S&L, which has been providing cash for the Whitewater operation. According to the Washington Times, Ms. Clinton is put on a $2000 a month retainer by the S&L. Ms. Clinton will later claim not to have received any retainer nor to have been deeply involved with Madison.

During the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton defends her role in the Madison Guarantee S&L scandal by saying, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas. But what I decided to do was pursue my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life." Forgotten, however, is what inspired this homily: accusations that Ms. Clinton had represented Whitewater business partner Jim McDougal's S&L before her husband's government. Here's what the New York Times reported on March 17, 1992: "Hillary Clinton said today that she did not earn 'a penny' from state business conducted by her Little Rock law firm and that she never intervened with state regulators on behalf of a failed Arkansas savings and loan association. . . "

Records will show that she did, in fact, represent Madison before the state securities department. After the revelation, she says, "For goodness sakes, you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks."

Susan McDougal recalls Ms. Clinton coming in and drumming up the business. Ms. McDougal tells the Washington Post: "The problem was finances, her finances." The Washington Times quotes an unnamed Clinton business associate who claims the governor used to "jog over to McDougal's office about once a month to pick up the [retainer] check for his wife." Jim McDougal's version of the story, according to the LA Times, is that Clinton asked him to throw some legal work his wife's way to help the Clintons out of a financial crunch: "I hired Hillary because