-Caveat Lector-
the amazing thing in the Clinton - Jones case is the case itself.
here is a woman who the then governor whipped it out in front of her, and in
an admittedly classless Arkansas manner, asked if wanted a suck. she said
no. he put it away. there were no repercussions from her saying no.
isn't this what we are trying to teach our children - that no means no?
so in essence she got 800,000 dollars for NOT giving a blow job.
maybe I should sue... i've never given any president a blow job - lets see
there have been 5 presidents since I turned 18 so that's 4 million dollars I
have coming to me.
-- ---------------------- -------------- ---- ------ --------------
Planet spins - so do I
neo-sufi wisdom
NEURONAUTIC INSTITUTE on-line: http://home.earthlink.net/~thew
> From: MIKE SPITZER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Conspiracy Theory Research List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:08:38 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [CTRL] WT: The court vindicated?
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> The court vindicated?
>
> Washington Times
> July 17, 2001
>
> By Bruce Fein
>
>
> Last May 27, the fourth anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's
> politically controversial decision in Clinton vs. Jones (1997) denying a
> presidential immunity from civil suits pivoting on non-official conduct
> passed unnoticed.
>
> That silence speaks volumes. It corroborates the high court's discrediting
> of the parade of projected horribles conjured up by President William
> Jefferson Clinton's advocates if immunity were denied.
>
> The persistent myth peddled by some that Clinton vs. Jones caused President
> Clinton's independent counsel and impeachment ordeals is fit more for
> troubadours than for historians.
>
> Paula Jones sued Mr. Clinton in federal district court before Judge Susan
> Webber Wright on May 6, 1994, asserting various federal and state causes of
> action. They all spun on Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual harassment of Miss
> Jones in a hotel room during his Arkansas governorship. Mr. Clinton
> insisted that neither a trial of the case nor discovery could ensue while
> he occupied the White House because of an implied constitutional immunity.
> (In contrast, members of the House and Senate command an express immunity
> from suit for legislative activity under Article I, section 6).
>
> Writing for a unanimous court in Jones, Justice John Paul Stevens lacerated
> Mr. Clinton's constitutional defense. The president argued that his
> schedule was too crowded to accommodate defending against civil litigation.
>
> In other words, an accommodation would necessarily sabotage the discharge
> of presidential duties and responsibilities. Justice Stevens scoffed. As
> any commonplace observer knows, presidents routinely squander time on golf
> courses, fishing, fund-raising appearances, and otherwise that could be
> clipped if needed to defend an occasional lawsuit based on pre-presidential
> conduct. And nothing in episodic testimony of presidents in criminal
> investigations or prosecutions indicated a danger to presidential
> functions.
>
> Mr. Clinton also forecast a hurricane of politically motivated harassing
> and frivolous litigation if the Jones suit proceeded. Justice Stevens again
> voiced incredulity, noting the arsenal of legal sanctions against vexing
> and mean-spirited lawsuits.
>
> What Mr. Clinton conspicuously declined to argue was telling. He did not
> even hint he might be "trapped" into apparent perjury or obstruction of
> justice in the Jones case if compelled to testify under oath.
>
> The Clinton vs. Jones critics have accused the high court of political
> naivete. But the fourth anniversary proves the detractors deserve that
> derision. Neither the former president nor any of his intimate lieutenants
> have suggested that the litigating distraction impaired any presidential
> decision or function. Moreover, the forecasted flood of Paula Jones copycat
> suits against either President Clinton or his successor George W. Bush
> proved as imaginary as the Loch Ness Monster.
>
> Scourges of Clinton vs. Jones have thus resorted to the ill-conceived legal
> maxim that if the law and facts are against you, confuse the issue. They
> urge that Monicagate and the nation's impeachment crisis would have been
> avoided if the Supreme Court had sustained Mr. Clinton's constitutional
> immunity claim. But think of its monstrous implications: namely, that
> presidents should enjoy constitutional immunity from a civil lawsuit
> because their disdain for law and constitutional duties coupled with
> vaulting ambitions will push them to criminality in attempting to win.
>
> Enlightened law rewards virtue, not villainy. Furthermore, even Mr.
> Clinton's most ardent defenders in Clinton vs. Jones did not imagine their
> client would stoop to reprehensible conduct if the suit continued.
>
> It might be said that the precedent was simply the first step of a
> "right-wing" conspiracy to destroy Mr. Clinton's presidency. But the
> indictment is counterfactual. The chief legal charges against the president
> all proved substantial, not frivolous. Thus, he settled the Jones lawsuit
> for a handsome sum; was impeached by the House of Representatives on two
> counts, and 50 senators voted to convict on one charge; was held in
> contempt of court and fined by Judge Wright for intentional lying and
> attempting to obstruct justice; and, agreed to a suspension of his Arkansas
> law license and conceded the falsity of some testimony in exchange for the
> independent counsel's closure of an outstanding criminal investigation.
>
> In sum, Mr. Clinton's misconduct, not the Clinton vs. Jones ruling, brought
> on his multifront legal wars. No one speaks of a right-wing conspiracy
> anymore, not even New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. History's
> vindication of the Supreme Court rejection of President Clinton's immunity
> claim is not assured. Napoleon quipped that history is largely a fable
> mutually agreed upon, which his own Jekyll-and-Hyde treatment in the
> evolution of French history texts substantiates. Ditto for the 1876 Battle
> of the Little Bighorn. Examples are endless. Nothing is more contrary to
> experience than John Milton's delusion in "Aeropagitica" that truth
> invariably triumphs over falsehood on an even playing field. Truths must be
> marketed like commodities to sustain themselves, and Supreme Court
> decisions are no exception.
>
>
> Bruce Fein is general counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, a
> public interest law group headquartered in Virginia.
>
>
> ================================================================
> Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
>
> FROM THE DESK OF:
>
> *Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
> ================================================================
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
> sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
> directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
> always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
> credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
> <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
> ========================================================================
> 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
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
