-Caveat Lector- "President Clinton is a total supporter of the (porn) industry, and he's always been on our team," David Schlessinger of the adult-oriented Vivid Videos told TV Guide. "It's not that Clinton has been outwardly supportive of the adult industry, but rather that he hasn't tried to quash it the way republicans did in the 1980s." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3684302d02f4.htm IS LARRY FLYNT BRIBING THE PRESIDENT AS BOTH FACE JANUARY TRIALS ? December 25, 1998 Tom Flocco TV MEDIA SILENT ON LARRY FLYNT'S JANUARY INTERSTATE PORN TRIAL AS CLINTON TRIAL CONFLICTS (Blackmail/Bribery?) INVOLVING IMPLIED SENATE 'OUTINGS' AND SCORCHED EARTH INVESTIGATIVE COSTS RECEIVE SOFT COVERAGE PORN MAGNATE REFUSES TO DENY RELATIONSHIP TO WHITE HOUSE AGENTS LENZNER, PALADINO AND CARVILLE (FBI FILES?) ON MSNBC/ABC While it is not quite so obvious to most Americans, those who are familiar with the modus operandi of the rogue president will not be surprised to hear that the financing of pornographer Larry Flynt's investigation of Clinton congressional enemies was possibly a disguised political contribution to encourage White House support and influence regarding the upcoming multiple-count interstate pornography indictments facing Flynt and his brother, Jimmy, in Cincinnati. The influence is possible as Clinton fired EVERY U.S. attorney and replaced them with HIS people at the outset of his administration, just as he politicized the Reno Justice Department in a effort to CONTROL the justice system in America. Flynt refused to deny MSNBC/ABC questions as to whether he had a relationship to Lenzner, Paladino or Carville--or why he is not 'outing' democrats. Larry and Jimmy Flynt were indicted in April, 1998 on 15 counts of obscenity violations, including the pandering of the video, "Pam and Tommy Lee--Hard-core and Uncensored" to a 14 year old boy at their downtown Cincinnati store and the interstate transportation of obscenity via a common carrier (Federal Express), according to a November Washington Times piece. The United States Criminal Code forbids obscenity to be mailed, transported or sold. Coincidently, the Flynt brothers porn trial and the Clinton Senate trial BOTH begin in January, 1999. The are a number of other potential areas of recent implied influence involving the pornography industry and the Clinton Administration. The Times also reported that porn prosecutions of obscenity violations plummeted during Mr. Clinton's first term. And while Janet Reno fights "kiddie porn" on the internet, the adult hard-core and illegal porn is left UNPROSECUTED. Justice Department spokesman John Russell said the emphasis is on child exploitation "because Attorney General Janet Reno wants it there. That is where our money and manpower are directed." "President Clinton is a total supporter of the (porn) industry, and he's always been on our team," David Schlessinger of the adult-oriented Vivid Videos told TV Guide. "It's not that Clinton has been outwardly supportive of the adult industry, but rather that he hasn't tried to quash it the way republicans did in the 1980s." The Times said that Clinton UNEXPECTEDLY OPPOSED the Child On-Line Protection Act (giving children some protection from Internet smut) during September and early October, 1998, but finally did sign the Act into law as one of the LAST items agreed to in the recent omnibus spending bill that passed at the end of the 105th Congress. And since Flynt markets porn videos, he would have interest in the Free Speech Coalition desire to mainstream the multi-billion-dollar adult entertainment industry. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Coalition also filed suit against the Reno Justice Department, CHALLENGING a law that prohibits the production of simulated child pornography. For they felt the Child Pornography Prevention Act could brand even R-rated films as obscene. The L.A. Times cited a California legislator who branded the suit as "turning perversion into politics." Is Mr. Flynt blackmailing United States congressmen in order to force a censure/adjournment? Is he bribing Mr. Clinton to avert a prison sentence from his porn trial? Will the Senate permit Mr. Clinton to offer "information" provided by taxpayer-funded lawyers/private investigators and undisclosed illegal possession of confiscated FBI files? And is "senatorial fear" a factor facing our sanctimonious symbols of sagacity as they contemplate possible individual "indiscretions" and why it might be better to bring the boy-president's trial to a speedy conclusion with censure--presidential felonies or not. Democrats will have a choice between facing voters in 2000 as the pro-perjury party if they choose to acquit; but worse, a conviction risks liberal wrath at the polls. Republicans have relatively little to fear unless they have majority moderate-liberal constituencies, have presidential aspirations OR have moral and/or campaign finance problems. So it would seem, in light of the above, that the all-around solution would be a quick censure and adjournment. But republicans have the most to lose in that their conservative base--the loyal constituency that puts them in office every election--WILL BE QUITE UNHAPPY IF SENATORS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CAST THEIR VOTES IN EITHER FULL APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PRESIDENTIAL FELONIES AFTER A COMPLETE, AND UN-WATERED DOWN SENATE TRIAL WHEREIN THE PRESIDENT AND THE OTHER KNOWLEDGEABLE WITNESSES TESTIFY FULLY AND COMPLETELY IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Perhaps Majority Leader Lott will have the courage to put everything on television in PRIME TIME so that Americans can watch the side-show for themselves--Vernon Jordan and Bill Richardson squirming through their "jobs for silence" shtick, Betty Currie's "gift-hiding" and "definition of alone" routine, Monica's "he touched me" melody, and all followed by a presidential "definition of what is-is" and "she had sex with me but I didn't have sex with her"--an Article III finale! And after the Clinton defense team opines on the merits of grand-jury perjury via Article I, let the senators vote up or down on presidential felonies--the White House's worst nightmare. But since a large group of senators seem to be discussing how to take the cowardly option of censure, LET THE JURY-TAMPERING BEGIN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Posted by: Tom Flocco http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3684302d02f4.htm Bard Free Speech! Use or lose it. Federal Government defined: ....a benefit/subsidy protection racket! 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. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
