Re: starr quote

Roy T. Fielding (
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:09:50 -0700

>Ideals Vs. Duty, 1987
>Do you have anything more recent, you know, like *after* Starr took an oath of
>office that might be in conflict with his personal beliefs? That's 11 years

Hey Geege, why do you feel it necessary to defend Starr? It was his choice
to include the full text of grand jury testimony in his report to congress,
which is something normal prosecutors are forbidden by law to make public.
You haven't once questioned the authenticity or accuracy of anyone's
testimony other than the President's. You seem hellbent to accuse him of
sexual harrassment, even though the relationship described by Lewinsky
does not qualify as any such thing [she was chasing him, remember?].

If you can find something interesting to say, then go ahead. Even a round
of Clinton jokes is fine by me. What I don't care for is how many clueless
pundits you can copy to the list -- none of them know anything more about
the subject than you do. Find the text of the law that Clinton signed and
post that, if you want, since then we'd at least get some useful bits.
Do some research on the opinions of Judge Rehnquist and try correlating
that to a trial by the senate. Anything that isn't just a total waste
of electrons.

>Seems like the Clintonistas have to dig way back in the political pleistocene
>to find inconsistencies (not lies under oath) to counterweight the President's
>"activities." I hope your carbon-dating tools are accurate.

I'm not looking for counterweights. I am looking for a reason why people
like you prefer to see our own government sit around jerking off to the
Starr report rather than doing any of the tasks of government for which
they were elected. Is it really so entertaining? Did you ever get the
impression that there might be a bunch of modern-day huns standing outside
the city walls, but everyone inside is too absorbed to notice?