[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As for Linda Tripp -- this is the first I've heard that she is actually
> > going to be prosecuted. Yeah. And what about her moral indiscretion --
> > figuratively screwing a 'friend' -- why is that any less horrendous an
> > indiscretion?
>
> Without wishing to seem arrogant, I see that, not being an American,
> you are not familiar with our Constitution, nor how we run our government.
>
> I may be wrong, but I think, she saw obstruction of justice and
> decided it was her Duty as a citizen of the United States to do something
> about it. If so, she should not be charged, but thanked.
Have to disagree with that. If she wanted to "do something", she could
have simply reported it and gone away. Going ahead to illegally tape
and entrap someone, and further try to get a book deal out of it, is
illegal no matter the justification . . . and only goes to muck up a
proper investigation to boot.
> We, as citizens
> of a democracy, have the right to arrest those who violate the law. It is
> part of our duty to uphold our Constitution. Mr. Clinton, you see, works
> for us; not the other way around. And we are beginning to get the feeling
> that he has not been working out that well. He seems to have taken
> liberties not allowed him -- tampering with evidence and lying in an
> official capacity TO US!!!
Again, I'm not sure the lines are that clear. He lied in a political
front, not an official one. While it in no way changes the fact that he
lied for me, it does temper things. When you are forced into a lawsuit
that is largely frivolous and paid for directly by your political
enemies, buttressed by illegally obtained tapes from a republican woman
supported with big republican money, and hounded by an independent
counsel who is on his 247th issue after 4 years and under huge pressure
to find anything at all . . . well, i temper things abit. For all the
humphing and hawing going on in washington, 99% of these people would
have done the same thing.
And not one iota of it has anything to do with the job itself.
> I don't quit think so. I think it was, in large part, outrage at what
> Clinton did! Perhaps part of that outrage was over sexual matters; but far
> more the part about gross abuse of power and Obstructing Justice! That, I
> should remind you, is what got Nixon booted out of office, not sex.
> Kennedy had sex in the office; he was not booted out because he did an
> excellent job upholding our Constitution and promoting Democracy.
Precisely, and where in Clinton's indescretions has he failed to promote
democracy? I agree the lies are borderline Constituional offenses (but
clearly not impeachable), but again, it's all unrelated.
> The packets do not pass through your part of the internet except
> where other people ASK for it. We did not seize the net, nor ram this
> content down anyone's throat. We only allowed those who wanted to see it,
> the FREEDOM TO CHOSE to see it. And it is obvious that a very, very large
> number of people VOTED with their fingers in favor of having it made
> available to them. It was, often by a factor of three to six, the most
> asked for item on ALL the search engines polled, every hour of the day for
> six days running! (Search Engine Stats will be available Monday, as
> usual.) As my sig file says:
People didn't get this for content related to politics or voting or
democracy. They got it to see what the sexy parts were. And the sexy
parts get all of the attention because there is simply nothing else in
the 200 pages that warrants serious review.
B
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
