Re: Clinton

Gregory Alan Bolcer (
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:13:01 -0800

Ridiculous. Starr is letting the Jones lawyers do all the
tabloid work and just stepping in to address the more serious
matters. Usually a judge would suspend an investigation (Jones)
in lieu of a more serious charge and let the more serious one
continue, but Jones' lawyers are going full speed ahead. Next
up to the plate? Sheila Lawrence. Jones' lawyers will depose
her regarding her alleged affair with Clinton. Starr's office
will be watching this to determine whether her husband's
appointment to the Swiss Ambassadorship or burial plot in Arlington
were to buy her silence and cooperation in keeping a lid on
bimbogate. Tell me these aren't seriouse crimes, not the sex
mind you, but the subjugation of laws regardless of it was
to avoid embarrassment or conceal a crime, is still illegal.


There was all this sex, but I kept wondering when they were
going to bring death into it. It's always sex and death.

> To me, the scariest aspect of the whole matter is Kenneth Starr's
> abuse of the Independant Counsel statutes, by repeated expansion of
> his original mandate, to the point that he now seems to be functioning
> effectively in a role that might best be dubbed Inquisitor General,
> empowered to use any and all means (Body wires! Secret tapes! Whole
> squads of FBI agents! --- and how the hell did the *FBI* get into this
> anyway?) to pursue any and all accusations of any kind of misconduct
> whatever against the President.
> And for what? By all reasonable accounts, while there is serious
> tabloid trash potential here, the case for criminal misconduct by the
> President (i.e., suborning perjury) seems pretty damn thin --- the
> media reports say that in several months of surreptitiously (and
> illegally) taping Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp didn't manage to get
> her to state, or even clearly imply, even once that either Clinton or
> his advisers had actually encouraged her to lie about anything. But
> the *possibility* exists. So loose the hounds!
> I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, both on political and personal
> grounds --- he doesn't keep his promises even where it *matters*
> (i.e., policy). I mean, what can you say about a Democratic president
> who has a noticably better public rapport with Newt the Nut than with
> his own party's Congressional leadership? But this Whitewater
> business has long ago transited into the realm of the delusional and
> absurd. Starr has been working on the damn thing for nearly as long
> as Clinton has been in office. Hey, buddy, if you haven't got an
> actionable court case yet, then you aren't going to. Give it up!
> And what sensible person, no matter how spotless their morals or
> public and private conduct, would want to serve in the executive
> branch when they might find themselves the subject of an inquiry by
> the Starr chamber, or one of its ilk (like the one which has indicted
> Henry Cisneros, not for failing to disclose the payments to his
> mistress, but for underestimating the dollar amount)? No one. We're
> chasing good people away from the White House, and leaving it to the
> scoundrels.
> rst