-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.lies,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.rush -limbaugh Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 12:07 PM Subject: Re: The Starr Trap - Anthony Lewis Column >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (UltraZ) wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:10:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >BEFORE YOU WATCH ANY MORE COVERAGE ON THE CLINTON DEBACLE, READ THIS COLUMN >BY >> >ANTHONY LEWIS. I BELIEVE IT TO BE ACCURATE AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE! >THANKS. >> > >> > ABROAD AT HOME / By ANTHONY LEWIS >> > >> >BOSTON -- At 1 P.M. on Friday, Jan. 16, Monica Lewinsky arrived at the Ritz >> >Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City to meet Linda Tripp. What happened then is >> >well known. But its significance -- its crucial significance -- is not >> >generally understood. Ms. Lewinsky was confronted by F.B.I. agents and >> >Kenneth Starr's assistant prosecutors. She immediately told them, as she >> >testified later, that "I wasn't speaking to them without my attorney." Her >> >attorney was Francis D. Carter. When she was subpoenaed by Paula Jones's >> >lawyers, she told him that she had not had "sexual relations" with President >> >Clinton; Mr. Carter prepared, and she signed, an affidavit to that effect. >> > >> >Mr. Starr's agents did everything they could, short of physical force, to >> >keep Ms. Lewinsky from calling Frank Carter. They told her that he was a >> >civil rather than a criminal lawyer "so he really couldn't help me." (That >> >was a lie; Mr. Carter is a highly regarded criminal lawyer who for six years >> >headed Washington's public defender service.) They gave her the number of >> >another lawyer and suggested she call him. >> > >> >They told her she had signed a false affidavit and could go to prison for 27 >> >years. They offered to give her immunity if she would "cooperate" -- but >said >> >there would be no deal if Mr. Carter were called in. (A Federal regulation >> >forbids immunity negotiations in the absence of a suspect's lawyer.) >> > >> >Why were Mr. Starr's deputies so anxious that Ms. Lewinsky not telephone Mr. >> >Carter? On that Friday afternoon Mr. Carter had not yet filed Ms. Lewinsky's >> >affidavit. Until it was filed, it could be changed -- without legal >> >consequences. Federal law makes it a crime only to file a false affidavit in >> >a civil case. You can swear one, keep it, then change it or tear it up >> >without violating the law. >> > >> >Mr. Starr knew about the affidavit from Linda Tripp's last taped conversation >> >with Ms. Lewinsky, and knew from Paula Jones's lawyers that it might not yet >> >have been filed. That is why his deputies worked so hard to keep Ms. >Lewinsky >> >from calling Frank Carter. If he knew what was happening, they realized, he >> >would not file it. And they wanted a crime. They wanted perjury to be >> >committed: by Ms. Lewinsky so they would have leverage over her, and by the >> >President when he was deposed in the Jones case the next day. >> > >> >If Ms. Lewinsky had called that afternoon, Mr. Carter told me, the affidavit >> >"would not have been sent." But there was no call. At the end of the >> >business day it was sent to the court in Little Rock by Federal Express. >> >Under the rules, that was a filing. Mr. Carter had shown the affidavit to >> >the Jones lawyers and to Robert Bennett, President Clinton's lawyer. If he >> >had not filed it, he said "I would have told them." So Mr. Bennett would >> >have known of Mr. Starr's interest in Monica Lewinsky. The President's >> >deposition on Saturday would have taken another course or been canceled. And >> >the history of the last 10 months would have been very different. >> > >> >(Did the President or Ms. Lewinsky in fact commit perjury when they swore >> >they had not had "sexual relations"? Perjury, a complicated legal concept, >> >requires among other things proof of deliberate falsehood. In a conversation >> >with Linda Tripp unrelated to any threat of prosecution, Ms. Lewinsky had >> >said emphatically that "having sex" meant "having intercourse" -- not oral >> >sex.) >> > >> >The right to a lawyer is fundamental in our constitutional system. A person >> >accused of crime, the Supreme Court said in the Scottsboro Case in 1932, >> >"requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step." Without it, the >> >innocent person may be overborne by what she does not understand. Police >> >officers occasionally break the rules. It is another matter when >> >prosecutors, who are officers of the court, overbear a young woman to keep >> >her from calling her lawyer. The Starr deputies who were there on Jan. 16 -- >> >Michael Emmick, Jackie Bennett Jr. and Bruce Udolf -- should surely face >> >questions by the appropriate legal authorities on their fitness to practice >> >law. And Mr. Starr condoned what they did.### >> > >> Your narrative is at most a creative lie and stretching the truth to a >> preconceived conclusion. Sheila Jackson Lee asked the same >> question of Starr and he denied such gobbeldygook. If Monica's rights >> were violated why did her attorneys suggest she cooperate rather than >> excuse herself as a witness under harassment and intimidation? They >> told her to cooperate because NO such action was placed forth by >> Starr's investigators. > >> One more thing, Investigators especially prosecutors, can do anything >> they wish to extract testimony, They are within the law and protected >> by charter as court officers. > >Beleive whatever you wish about the article but don't try to back it up >with a pure b.s. statement like this. Court officers and even judges have >limitions under the law. You had better hope your statement never becomes >a reality. > >>Get real. > >Indeed. > >Stan Knight >|"You have the right to have your attorney present during questioning"| > ---Unless UltraZ gets his way--- > >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
