--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00060 Date: 05/08/98 From: EARL CROASMUN Time: 11:44am \/To: DAN BOSCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Lewinsky DB> Which, of course, was not the case when Starr's people were DB> detaining her and she had asked to contact her counsel. ->> She was not "detained." They told her she could leave any ->> time. They let her ->> contact her lawyer. They even let her call her mom. And she ->> went shopping and watched a movie while waiting for her mom to ->> get down from New York. What's your complaint? DB> Your evidence for this is . . . better than nothing, which is all that YOU have had to offer. But it is amusing, to see you demand that I DISprove an assertion for which you have NEVER offered any initial "evidence." Anyone who has followed the story via newspapers, TV, or the Newsweek stories already knows your account of the story is a crock. One of many possible examples would be the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Jan 25: "As the two women sat down for a 1 p.m. lunch, six FBI agents and lawyers wearing suits and ties swarmed them. After identifying themselves, they asked Lewinsky to go with them to a private setting where they could speak with er. The group went upstairs to a hotel suite. Tripp and some of the agents went into one room. Lewinsky, an attorney from Starr's office and two agents went to another. When told of her friend's betrayal and the evidence the prosecutors had collected, Lewinsky burst into tears. For a while, she sat alternately crying and brooding. While she struggled to compose herself, her legal options were outlined. Lewinsky was told that if she cooperated with investigators, they could recommend lenient treatment in any prosecution. Later, the prosecutors offered full immunity. In return, Lewinsky was told, she was expected to engage in undercover operations. At one point, Lewinsky bemoaned that she might bring down the entire Clinton dministration. Although she was told that she could walk away at any time, there was an added reason to stay. On one of the telephone tapes with Tripp, Lewinsky said her mother told her to lie if called to testify about her relationship with the president in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Lewinsky had placed her mother at risk of prosecution, too, but Starr's lawyers assured her they would overlook this if Lewinsky cooperated. Lewinsky said the decision was too big for her to make alone and she wanted to call her mother, Marcia Lewis, a New York writer. Lewis took a train to meet them. Because the prosecutors felt so pressed for time, they offered to meet Lewis halfway, in Philadelphia, but she preferred to come to Washington. That afternoon, Tripp left the hotel. Although they were holding off on questioning Lewinsky until her mother's arrival, the prosecutors had established a rapport with her, investigators said. They had fetched coffee from Starbucks, brought her tissues, and Lewinsky even told them a dirty oke. They passed time watching movies on cable television. They strolled in the mall that adjoined the hotel, ate dinner at a restaurant and stopped to admire household wares at Crate and Barrel. Bad weather delayed Lewis' train, and she did not arrive at the hotel until 10 p.m. Lewis and Lewinsky asked to talk alone. In a hallway outside the hotel room, they argued. Starr's team was worried that Lewinsky might be crumbling from emotional strain. Lewis told them that she had to call her ex-husband before she could decide what her daughter should do. Then, another hitch. Lewinsky's father, Bernard, a California oncologist, questioned whether Lewinsky should have her own lawyer before committing to any agreement. The deal had begun to unravel. Dr. Lewinsky told the prosecutors that Ginsburg, a longtime family friend, could be lined up quickly. Lewinsky seemed reluctant to have him represent her, remarking to her mother that he was a medical malpractice lawyer. But when Ginsburg called, Starr's team put him on the line with Lewinsky, who agreed to retain him. Ginsburg was wary. He did not know any of the evidence assembled by the prosecutors. But the prosecutors made clear that because time was critical, their immunity offer would expire when Lewinsky and her mother walked out the door that night. Ginsburg advised Lewinsky to delay her decision, and she left the Ritz-Carlton at 11 p.m." If you feel obligated to cover your shame by saying something, at least try to make it something of substance. Why did you make up the idea that she was "detained?" Why did you falsely suggest that she was not allowed counsel? --- * Origin: Obstruction of Justice: An Impeachable Offense (1:170/302.93) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00061 Date: 05/08/98 From: EARL CROASMUN Time: 10:11am \/To: DAN BOSCH (Read 0 times) Subj: David Brock Apologizes ->> Either BJ Clinton is lying OR a huge and growing army of ->> people are ALL lying. With all the evidence amassed against ->> him, what in the world WOULD you accept as proof that at least ->> one of the allegations is true? What testimony, what ->> evidence, would you be completely unable to rationalize away? You did not even ATTEMPT to answer this. That says a lot right there. DB> Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones have both been DB> offered large sums of money for their "story" which tends to DB> skew their credibility. Just more examples of what you DON'T accept as "proof." How much have they been PAID? Both have corroborating witnesses. How much were THEY paid? How much was Gracen paid? Heck, she got a string of acting jobs, WITHOUT having to audition, just as soon as she DENIED sleeping with Clinton. By your apparent standard of truth, that would suggest her denial was a lie and her 1998 admission would be the truth. More to the point, you seem to be saying that none of them should be believed because they got something. How about the Gennifer Flowers story in 1992? She shouldn't be believed because she got money? Oops, the Star found independent verification of the story, and told Flowers they would run the story with or without her. And how about Clinton? She got a few thousand dollars for her story. He got the Presidency, and $200,000 A YEAR for his story. Which one had MORE OF AN INCENTIVE to lie? --- * Origin: Obstruction of Justice: An Impeachable Offense (1:170/302.93) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00062 Date: 05/08/98 From: EARL CROASMUN Time: 11:46am \/To: DAN BOSCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Reagan ->> ->> DB> How was the economy under his presidency? ->> ->> It was booming, and I was a hell of a lot better off than ->> I am ->> now. ->> DB> Whoops. The economy was booming? ->> Yes. ->> DB> How did you arrive at that standard? ->> What measure of economic growth you want to use? ->> Unemployment? Real GNP growth? Reduction in inflation? ->> Lower poverty rate. DB> OH BOY! I'll use any of these you want. Use any or all, but at some point try to SAY something. From 1982 to 1989 unemployment went down sharply, real GNP growth went up, inflation went down, and the poverty rate fell. If you want to venture out of your hole and argue that the economy WAS NOT booming under Reagan, then please SAY something. ->> From 1983 to 1989 the deficit (as a percentage of GDP) was cut ->> by more than half (from 6.3% to 2.9%). Except for a blip up ->> in 1985, it fell EACH of those years. DB> Nice attempt at rationalizing. So how much did the deficit DB> grow in each of those years in terms of dollars? The deficit fell from 6.3% of GDP to 2.9% of GDP. If you don't understand why that (by accounting for increased economic growth, changes in cost of living, and greater ability to absorb debt) is the most relevant measurement, then just ask. Don't just sit there and ignore the point. ->> Under Clinton, the economy ->> was growing more strongly before he was inaugurated than it ->> did for much of his time IN office. DB> You're going to have a hard time proving this one too. According to the Economic Report of the President, real GDP in the fourth quarter of 1992 was up 4.3 percent. In the NEXT 15 quarters, GDP grew that much or more only THREE times by my count. That wasn't hard at all. DB> Ok. I probably have made some remarks that weren't so honorable. Nor were they accurate. --- * Origin: Obstruction of Justice: An Impeachable Offense (1:170/302.93) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00063 Date: 05/12/98 From: ED HACKETT Time: 01:35pm \/To: ROSS SAUER (Read 0 times) Subj: Burton's goon quits In a message dated 05-11-98 Ross Sauer wrote to Ed Hackett: EH> Hahahahahahohohohohohohoheeheeheeheehee...sometimes you just crack me EH> up, especially when you're waaaay up there on your high horse. RS> Better than being a horse's ass, like you sound. Can dish it out, but can't take it. Just like all liberal weenies. RS> I've heard of Bossie before. Yeah. Right. Sure. Whatever. Bye, ED Garcon, un toad-in-ze-ole, s'il vous plait, avec chips et mushy peas. --- * TIMM 1.1 * * Origin: Selective Source Virginia Beach, VA (757)471-6776 (1:275/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00064 Date: 05/12/98 From: ED HACKETT Time: 01:35pm \/To: CHARLES DOLL (Read 0 times) Subj: "Conservative debate" In a message dated 05-11-98 Charles Doll wrote to Ross Sauer: CD> One good turn deserves another---------- CD> You Know You're A Liberal If... Good job. Bye, ED Garcon, un toad-in-ze-ole, s'il vous plait, avec chips et mushy peas. --- * TIMM 1.1 * * Origin: Selective Source Virginia Beach, VA (757)471-6776 (1:275/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00065 Date: 05/12/98 From: ED HACKETT Time: 01:35pm \/To: ROSS SAUER (Read 0 times) Subj: One of my sources In a message dated 05-11-98 Ross Sauer wrote to All : RS> A few people here have been wondering where I get a lot of the RS> info I post here. Well, one of them is: www.salonmagazine.com I guess the only thing left to say is "du-uuuh, I thought it was Mother Jones." RS> You see, unlike the Limbaugh Letter or The American Spectator, Salon has RS> a balanced view of events. Not the "conservatives can do no wrong" RS> attitude from the above. Yeah boy. That Michael Kinsley is the paradigm of impartial objectivity. Bye, ED Garcon, un toad-in-ze-ole, s'il vous plait, avec chips et mushy peas. --- * TIMM 1.1 * * Origin: Selective Source Virginia Beach, VA (757)471-6776 (1:275/102) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00066 Date: 05/12/98 From: RONNIE THOMPSON Time: 06:11pm \/To: STAN HARDEGREE (Read 0 times) Subj: Castro? SH>>> Having lived in Latin America for a goodly portion of my SH>>> life, I'm willing to bet that if we locate our dealerships SH>>> next door to each other, I'll buy you out sooner rather SH>>> than later. RT>> Hmmmmm....where have I heard that before.....hmmmm....sooner RT>> rather than later..... seems like someone used that not too RT>> long ago....hmmmmmm...what was his name....seems like it RT>> starts with a "C"......hmmmmm SH> "More rather than less....." SH> "I cain't answer none uh them question about tat. I'se under SH> a gag order, and I thank *somebody* ought to be doin' whut SH> the judge sez. Sides that, I'se the laist person who needs SH> to be a talkin' about character." I'd like just ONE credible newsperson (Helen Thomas would be great) to come back with "Why Mr President, are you lying to the public, no such gag order exists" and see what he would say. He might get like Mike McCurry and just answer "I will not answer that question" and go on.....it usually seems to work for "them" Ronnie in NC --- * Origin: Guaranteed to have an opinion!! (1:3634/12.117) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00067 Date: 05/12/98 From: RONNIE THOMPSON Time: 06:20pm \/To: BOBBY ARCHER (Read 0 times) Subj: Clinton Lovers RS>> Not Clintons job to keep track of what is and is not RS>> consitutional in legislation... BA> I see....so Clinton just signs everything that comes across his BA> desk....doesn't even read it. Mr Constitutional Law prof BA> from Little Rock is just doing his job. Plusss.....Clinton has what, about 6500 lawyers all working with him??? I read an article in the paper the other day and it said that that lawyers Clinton has hired, are being paid for with TAXPAYER MONEY. He is basically claiming that the charges that have been thrown out, are in relation to the WH, therefore he is justified in letting taxpayers foot the bill!! The man has NO shame, NONE. Ronnie in NC --- * Origin: Guaranteed to have an opinion!! (1:3634/12.117) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00068 Date: 05/12/98 From: RONNIE THOMPSON Time: 06:39pm \/To: DAN BOSCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Paula ->> DB> It's hard for me to understand how people can keep believing that ->> DB> he's simply doing his job in a fair and impartial manner. I ->> believe DB> he has taken the "Special Prosecutor" idea to heart and ->> is intent on DB> prosecuting, regardless of the means to the end. ->> Does the name 'Lawrence Walsh' ring any bells? Sauce for the ->> goose, sauce for the gander, and all that... DB> So, this really isn't about wrongdoing but revenge? DB> If so, can somebody quit spending our money and just settle the game of DB> one upmanship? Let's see...yesterday Janet Reno said there would be an IC appointed into Alexis Herman. That will make what....FIVE investigations going on PLUS the one regarding Clinton, just on either his cabinet or past cabinet members. The two investigations that were going on in regards to Ron Brown, were immediately stopped with his death. Everybody seems to be talking about the money being spent by Starr.....have you ever thought about the millions of dollars being spent in all the other investigations??? It's not about "one upmanship" Dan, it's about investigating the vermin in the Clinton administration. Ronnie in NC --- * Origin: Guaranteed to have an opinion!! (1:3634/12.117) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 112 POLITICS Ref: F5H00069 Date: 05/12/98 From: RONNIE THOMPSON Time: 06:46pm \/To: DAN BOSCH (Read 0 times) Subj: Lewinsky ->> ->> She was not "detained." They told her she could leave any ->> ->> time. They let her ->> ->> contact her lawyer. They even let her call her mom. And ->> she ->> went shopping and watched a movie while waiting for ->> her mom to ->> get down from New York. What's your complaint? ->> DB> Your evidence for this is ->> The evidence is that is was in Newsweek, as well as in all ->> newspaper accounts, when this story first broke. DB> So, are you saying that if the government detains someone and lets them DB> call their mom and watch a tv movie, that it's all right? Is DB> that the point you're making? What part of "they told her she could leave" are you having trouble with, Dan?? She called her mom and while she was waiting on her mother to get there, from New York, Monica went OUT AND WENT SHOPPING AND TOOK IN A MOVIE. Understand now, Dan?? She wasn't detained. THAT'S the point I was trying to make. Understand it now? Ronnie in NC --- * Origin: Guaranteed to have an opinion!! (1:3634/12.117)