Haven't we had enough of this? Haven't we spent enough money?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Rant on:

The news that a new grand jury has been established to investigate Clinton once again has made me angry. I cannot believe taxpayer money is being spent once again to go through this malarchy again.

The Justice system was never meant to serve political aims, and who can doubt that powerful republicans are behind this fiasco? You know, the party that had over a 100 members of their administration from 1980-1992 indicted-and the president, Bush, who pardoned them all in the last months of his term. Since when do the republicans have a lock on morality? It is ridiculous. Irangate, Contragate, newt, etc-How in the world can you folks who support Bush sit there with a straight face and claim that the republican party/candidate will restore honesty and integrity to the white house?

Bush got up there at his convention and told bald-faced lies. Inclusiveness about race? Are you fucking joking? Why did Clinton have to use a special priviledge to appoint an asian american to a position in the justice system recently? Why have minority appointments to judgeships been stymied by republicans for the last few years? And health care and our children? Another lie. Texas ranks among the lowest states in dollars for education-and is a state with one of the highest rates of folks without health insurance in the country.

These stupid fucks impeached a president, lost that fight, lost congressional seats as a result, and now are going to do it again. They are going to do this again?

This can only help Gore. Why do they not want to campaign against Gore? WHy do they insist on campaigning against Clinton? This reeks to the high heavens, and the timing of it is so egregious that one can only draw the conclusion that it was a political maneuver. To all of you who want to elect two oilmen, who do not give a rat's ass about the working people, who want to elect a crackhead to the presidency, i say to you:

May God have mercy on your souls.

Rant off

Flame away-

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 18, 2000


And who exactly is the crackhead running for president?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), August 18, 2000.

Rant on

We have two choices for president in November. One is a robot (but a humanoid robot) the other is a lizard. All you folks who support Bush, how can you sit there with a straight face and pretend he is not Reptillian? How can you act like he is a human being, WHEN YOU KNOW THAT HE IS NOT? Prehaps you Bush supporters are not humans either!

Both Cheney and Bush are oil men, who will deplete our planet of its precious oil and ship it all to their home-planet leaving earth to look like a replica of a Mad Max movie! See how quick the few human Republicans sell out their fellow humans in order to boost themselves within the GOP ranks!

During their convention, the Grand Old Party trotted out minorities to show us how inclusive they were. The only thing is, is that these weren't PEOPLE of different ethinic backgrounds, they were lizzards and rodents wearing plastic suits that made them look like minorites. Of course walking and talking lizzards are a minority on planet earth, but not the kind of minorities that they were try to exploit!

Rant off!!!

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), August 18, 2000.

Right on FS, very perceptive.

This is just another example of how desperate and sleazy the Republicans are because they are incapable of winning the presidency without slinging more Clinton mud, hoping it sticks to Al Gore.

They underestimate the people, believing we are so dumb that we don't see what they're doing. It will hurt them in the long run. I think what we are seeing for real is the last desperate gasps for air by a GOP party that is, for all practical purposes already dead... history.

-- (wont miss the @ grand old. farties), August 18, 2000.

do we REALLY have choices??-both parties,are for NWO.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), August 18, 2000.



August 17, 2000

Democrats Attempt To Incite Public Backlash Against GOP by David Taylor

With Al Gore's Presidential campaign all but dead, the Clinton 'PR spin machine' has been called back into action. It is not a coincidence that this bombshell from the past was deliberately dropped on the very day Al Gore is scheduled to accept the Democratic nomination for President.

In deliberate fashion, Clinton/Gore spokespeople will hit all the media outlets in full force decrying the 'Republican dirty tricks crowd.' In a desperate gamble to turn public opinion against Bush and the Republicans, the Democratic spin machine intends to hammer home the point that the GOP is playing cheap partisan politics. They will repeat over and over that Republicans refuse to move beyond the 'Lewinsky scandal and the President's indiscretion,' providing a perfect forum for Al Gore to step to the podium tonight and declare how he will triumph over the scandal-obsessed Republicans and lead the country into the future.

With the Gore campaign on life support the Democrats had run out of realistic options to win the election. The numerous reinventions of Al Gore were not working, and the Gore campaign and White House strategists knew even a great Al Gore speech would not change the fundamental dynamic of the race. Staring at a landslide electoral defeat, they decided to gamble with leaking the Clinton Grand Jury story in the hope they could blame the Republicans and engineer the bounce Al Gore had to have, but was not getting.

Such tactics have been employed by the Clinton White House to devastating effect in the past. As this story develops and Democrats begin to lambaste Republicans, it will be interesting to see if the national press has the integrity to fully investigate where these leaks actually came from.


-- Huey Long (dems@crooks.criminals.international), August 18, 2000.


White house travel bill $292 million since 1997

-- Huey Long (dems@crooks.criminals.international), August 18, 2000.

How can we verify that the special prosecutor is a democrat?

-- need verification (a@p.[p), August 18, 2000.

Hey, Huey, who says Gore's campaign is "all but dead"?

(Funny thing there. Gore mentioned none of what this "article" claimed he would in his speech last night. Wow, what a "credible" source you got there.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), August 18, 2000.

On March 19, 2000, the television program This Week interviewed then newly appointed independent counsel Robert Ray. That program's transcript indicates that during the previous year, Mr. Ray had changed from registered Democrat to independent.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 18, 2000.



The Democrats' Dirty Little Secret August 17, 2000

They wont be caught trashing their ticket in public, but Voter.coms Jack Germond discovers that behind closed doors, many Democrats dont give Al Gore a fighting chance.

By Jack W. Germond Exclusively for Voter.com

LOS ANGELES -- Behind the fagade of cheering delegates waving their signs for the television cameras, there is a deep sense of unease among the most politically astute Democrats who have been meeting here this week. Their doubts about whether Vice President Al Gore can win are widespread.

The enthusiasm for the ticket of Gore and Joe Lieberman is limited, if only because the vast majority of the delegates here are probably a few degrees to the ideological left of the ticket. But there have been reservations about other Democratic nominees in the past among them Jimmy Carter in 1976, Michael. Dukakis in 1988 and even Bill Clinton in 1992. Each of them was viewed as something of a risk because none of them had a long history of fighting in the trenches with their fellow Democrats on such defining issues as civil rights and the war in Vietnam.

This time, however, the doubts are about a candidate who is considered a quasi incumbent and who is running at a time of unparalleled national prosperity, ordinarily an assurance of success. So if the problem is not the context in which the Democrats are trying to hold the White House, it has to be about the candidate himself.

And that is the core of the concern throughout the party. Too many people dont like Al Gore. And candidates who are not liked are not usually successful. The dirty little secret about this convention is that no one has figured out how to make the vice president more likeable and, by so doing, make him more electable.

The reservations about Gore are not being expressed openly, of course. Loyal Democrats dont want to be caught trashing their ticket in public. The only visible signs of distress are oblique and indirect. When Jimmy Carter suggests Gore needs some gaffe by his Republican opponent, George W. Bush, to win, the implication is that he lacks the positive qualities to defeat the Texas governor. When Bob Kerrey, the outspoken Democratic senator from Nebraska, loudly advises the vice president to put more distance between himself and President Clinton, you dont have to be a political genius to understand that Kerrey is not bursting with optimism about the ticket.

The opinion polls are a more objective gauge of the Gore problem. They have consistently shown Gores negatives -- meaning those who disapprove of him personally -- in the 40 to 45 percent range, a level that ordinarily is toxic for a candidate. The latest Los Angeles Times survey, for instance, gives Gore a 40 percent disapproval and 54 percent approval rating, compared to 33 and 59 for Bush, a significant difference in the judgment of those who understand the data. Another current poll finds that 47 percent of the voters claim they can never vote for Gore. Even if some of them are blowing smoke at the poll-takers, that is a frightening number for any candidate.

What makes these numbers particularly unnerving to these Democrats is that Al Gore is not one of those candidates who polarizes the electorate by taking extreme hard-line positions while also displaying both ignorance and insensitivity to the common concerns. On the contrary, as the convention speakers have been reminding everyone ad nauseam, Gore has had a public career that has equipped him for the presidency far better than the vast majority of candidates offered by either party. And the vice president's positions on issues are -- with only a few exceptions such as capital punishment -- identical to those of most Americans.

But Gore doesnt get any credit for these conventional credentials. On the contrary, the opinion surveys consistently find voters consider Bush, after only six years as a state governor, the equal of the vice president on one important issue after another.

So the operative question is what, if anything, Gore can do to change the dynamics of the campaign beyond, of course, waiting for Bush to blunder. Ordinarily, the answer would be for the candidate to settle on a message and refine his technique for delivering it to the voters in the three months left in the campaign, more than adequate time to change perceptions.

What worries the most astute Democrats, however, is their feeling that Gore has a tin ear for the politics of this year and a heavy hand as a political player. There is almost universal agreement, for example, that the vice president made a serious mistake in coming down hard on Rep. Loretta Sanchez because she planned to hold a fund raiser at the Playboy Mansion. The notion that those working families he is always addressing would be offended by the occasion speaks volumes about how out of touch he is with popular culture.

And there were snickers all over the city when Gore decided to personally provide the advance spin on his acceptance speech by assuring the Los Angeles Times, among others, that he was willing to take the risk of talking specifics and substance, the implication being that this would be a contrast to Bush and the Republicans. This is a candidate who cant even pander well.

The Democrats are not giving up on Al Gore at this point, by any means. They believe his resume will finally impress itself on the voters. And they believe that in the prolonged exposure of the general election campaign, the vice president will wear better than the amiable Republican from Texas. They know that Gore can be charming and quick-witted rather than a pedantic politician talking down to his constituents. And it is indeed quite possible, as Carter suggested, that Bush will stumble in some debate in October when the competition will be most intense. In the long run, they keep assuring one another, the golden condition of the economy will become a factor in the campaign weighing heavily in Al Gore's favor.

Right now, however, they worry about enlisting in a campaign behind a candidate the voters dont like. Thats doing things the hard way.


-- Huey Long (dems@crooks.criminals.international), August 18, 2000.


Ray's desire to reopen this case was expressed a LONG time ago. When I read the MSNBC article on this yesterday, I checked to see how the Democratic and liberal pundits took the news. NO ONE was upset. The Republican pundits, however, went into a frenzy, as demonstrated by Huey's articles.

Most Americans did a "HO HUM" on this one, including the Republican pundit who gave a one-liner on this on the network news last night.

Rumors abound on who "leaked" the story. The emotional Republicans claim the Democrats did it. The emotional Democrats claim the Republicans did it. Truth is, nobody cares about it anymore, including who leaked it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 18, 2000.

Anita, I must beg to differ with you. Many people care! Bill Clinton is in the sights of those who guard our freedoms and this is just the path of least resistance at the present. Clintons unholy alliance with the Riadys will not go unpunished and you can take that to the bank. Also, Captain Bob Smith (Clinton) will not be able to save his favorite puppet Howdy Doody (Gore) if his own slimy skin is under assault. Sounds like a plan does it not?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), August 18, 2000.


The Riady scandal never made it to the forefront of the news, and it had nothing to do with Al. In fact, there's more said this year about Dubya's illegal fundraising activities than Gore's [as much as some would like to link Gore with lawyers.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 18, 2000.

Given the scope of Clintons association with James Riady, and by extension the PRC, it IS amazing how all has been quiet on the Western Front. I would be sorely disappointed in you if Gore, in your opinion, has had no role in all of this. Hes the MAIN gopher, dont cha know.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), August 18, 2000.

And Anita, please understand that I believe ALL candidates for the office of President of the United States are bought and paid for. I just prefer the buyers to be Americans, patriotic fool that I am. Besides, I have already given-up on Spanish so Cantonese is definitely out.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), August 18, 2000.


I doubt very much that Clinton shared every little fundraising acitivity or blow-job with Al. AFAIK, Riady has been out of the picture since at least 1997. You might want to concentrate more on Buddhist monks if you want to taint Al.

EVERYONE's dirty in politics, Ra. YOU may want your illegal campaign contributions to come from American firms, but I'd prefer that they are simply ELIMINATED, and that is part of Al/Joe's platform. I vote for the lesser of the two evils, and FOR ME, Al/Joe are a HELLUVA lot less evil than the Bush/Cheney team. Corporate America sell their banks, etc. to Japan/China, etc. every day. American consumers buy products made in Japan/China, etc. every day. If you want to be jingoistic, start at the bottom and support your local businesses. We could re-introduce manufacturing of textiles, steel, and many other goods to the U.S. infrastructure if folks would finally realize that they sold THEMSELVES to foreign countries when they decided to pay less for goods not made in America. Show me NOW the prices on those foreign goods and ask yourself how you allowed this monopoly to rein.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 18, 2000.


-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 18, 2000.


-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 18, 2000.

in Spain

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 18, 2000.

What most people don't think about,(including myself in the past), is that these guys do not uphold the constitution. They don't refer to it, and they don't defer to it. They're manipulators, liars, and traitors. Both sides belong to the same clubs. CFR, Biderbergers, Tri-Lateral.

The constitution is being violated by every single one of them; the executive, legislative, and judicial. Get a copy and read it. If you are still picking sides, then you can't read, or maybe it's can't or don't want to comprehend.

I don't want to be insulting, but I can't think of any other way to say it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), August 18, 2000.


That's plain enough, KoFE.


-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 18, 2000.

Careful there Anita, you are taking on the appearance of the Thought Police. Because I believe that all politicians are bought and paid for does not extend to my wanting this to be. Now on the other hand, your expressed desire that this long-standing situation be eliminated is admirable. To suggest that this is a component of the Al and Joe show is fantasizing at its best. Back to you.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), August 18, 2000.

stays mainly on the plain.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 18, 2000.

I think she's got it.

-- Political (truths@do.little), August 18, 2000.


Federal judge says he is source of leak about Clinton grand jury

August 18, 2000 Web posted at: 6:53 p.m. EDT (2253 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal Judge Richard Cudahy said Friday that he was the "inadvertent" source of the leak that a new grand jury had been seated in the investigation of the case involving President Clinton and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Cudahy, a member of the "Special Division" three-judge panel that oversees the Offices of the Independent Counsel, issued a statement Friday saying he "had been the inadvertent source of the information ... with apologies to all concerned." The statement said the judge was prompted to speak because he was concerned about the nature of the controversy generated by his disclosure.

News of the grand jury came out Thursday, the same day that Vice President Al Gore accepted the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Legal sources said the grand jury was actually seated in July.

"The timing seems very odd that it comes out today, given the fact that it (the formation of the grand jury) occurred more than a month ago," Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane said on Thursday.

Cudahy, appointed by President Carter in 1979, said he revealed the information in response to a reporter's question about the work of the Special Division -- referring to the existence of the new grand jury as a reason Independent Counsel Robert Ray offered as a reason to extend his mandate for another year.

And last year, Cudahy said the "endless investigation" should be shut down with the departure of Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated the Clinton-Lewinsky case. The two other judges, Peter Fay and presiding judge David Sentelle, ruled the office should continue.

At issue is denial of affair

Ray has made no secret he intends to weigh whether Clinton should be indicted. However, he has said repeatedly that regardless of where the investigation leads, there will be no indictment returned against Clinton before he leaves office in January.

"The process serves to vindicate that no person -- even a president -- is above the law," Ray said March 19 in an interview with CNN.

At issue in Ray's investigation is whether Clinton committed perjury or obstructed justice when he denied an affair with Lewinsky in sworn testimony in the Paula Jones case.

The judge in the Jones case has already ruled the president gave false testimony and fined him for civil contempt of court. The disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court has also moved to revoke Clinton's law license.

Clinton was impeached by the House in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his affair with Lewinsky when she was a White House intern.

The Senate acquitted him in February 1999, allowing him to serve out his term.

Ray has said his investigation is ongoing and that he is building toward a final report on the Lewinsky scandal. One way to accomplish those goals is to use a grand jury to bring in additional witnesses and hear more testimony.

An expert cautioned that forming a new grand jury is no guarantee that Ray will seek an indictment.

"It's merely a step in an investigation, not an indication an indictment would ever be approved by a grand jury or even presented to the grand jury," said John Douglass, a former prosecutor in the Iran-Contra scandal.

"At this stage in this particular investigation it would be highly unlikely for a new grand jury to receive any new information that had not already been considered at length by Starr, the United States Congress and the prior grand jury," said Douglass, an expert in criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Richmond.

Federal oversight

Ray also received the go-ahead to continue his investigation Wednesday from the three-judge panel that appointed him as Starr's replacement last year.

The judges ruled that termination of the office "is not currently appropriate" under the independent counsel law, which expired last year but still applies to Ray's office under a grandfather clause.

By law, they could direct that his investigation be closed if they had determine it has been completed or "so substantially completed" that it would be appropriate for the Justice Department to finish.

Keith Ausbrook, senior counsel to Ray, declined comment about any grand jury activity, which is kept secret by law.

But in response to the judges' order, Ausbrook noted that "we've made public that the Lewinsky investigation remains open and that the e-mail investigation remains open."

The e-mail probe focuses on whether the White House concealed thousands of electronic messages sought by investigators. Presidential aides deny wrongdoing.

Ray's office recently closed the books on two other Clinton-era controversies -- the White House gathering of secret FBI files on Republicans and the firings of White House travel office employees. The prosecutor declined to bring criminal charges in either case.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/18/clinton.lewinsky.01/ index.html

-- Huey Long (dems@crooks.criminals.international), August 18, 2000.

This pathetic forum is still running along with all the fools that were here a year ago....names changed to protect those that were wrong and those who gloated too much. By now it should be obvious to the most casual observer that a bunch of lazy folks and opportunists took advantage of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) to manipulate the Stock Markets and Financial System. This year the piper might actually get paid. If there is a payback, gold will not help. Not much will help because it will be a collapse of mammoth proportions. All of this ranting here about Bore vs. Dubya is WORTHLESS. There are no candidates that people will endorse. It really looks to me like independent thinkers have two choices. For the conservative right wingers it is Buchanan/Foster and for the liberal left wingers it is Nader/????.

A choice for the other 2 is simply a choice for the ROW (Ruler(s) Of this World) and the wool over the eyes...the frog relaxes as the water warms up and then can't hop out when it is boiling because he is too weak.

-- William R. Sullivan (wrs@wham.com), August 18, 2000.


Campaign finance reform is DEFINITELY a part of the Al/Joe platform. THEY'RE not the ones who said they'd concentrate on elimination of foreign campaign contributions. *I*'m the one who suggested that the wholesalers of many products purchased in the U.S. reside in foreign countries, and that many banks and other firms in the U.S. are owned by people in foreign countries. It just doesn't make sense to me that illegal campaign contributions are more acceptable from an American-owned firm operating in the U.S. while illegal campaign contributions are NOT acceptable from a foreign-owned firm that operates in the U.S. BOTH firms are subject to the same rules.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 18, 2000.

Maybe someone should start a thread on campaign reform. Not a simple topic.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 19, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ