Off topic: Starr's ethics advisor quits in protest

Sorry, I know you're apt to tar and feather me for bringing up yet more of this stuff. But I couldnt resist. I just love the art of this headline. I couldnt resist the symmetry of it. I've been waiting for someone to catch this self-righteous grand inquisitor (aptly named after the Starr chamber of the inquisition) in some lurid affair but I guess I'll have to settle for this.

This line of comment is what is known as a "Red Herring". Designed by "spin doctors" to distract from the fact that William Jefferson Clinton put his hand on a Bible and took an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and then lied. He put his hand on a Bible and took an oath "to support and defend the Constitution", and then misused his Office; tampered with witnesses; obstructed justice; and suborned purjury. If this man dosen't go to jail, hundreds should be let out.

And, if the Constitution of the United States doesn't mean what it says, it should be discarded, and we should make him King.

Don't get me started, you know how I am.

homerr

Raining900 wrote in message ...

more of this

to catch

chamber of

[email] (Raining900) wrote:

Sorry Infallable One, Starr is as clean as a whistle and you'll never prove anything.

From: [email] (JT)

prove anything.>

Infallible One? Wow! Thanks :) I think that's the Pope you have me confused with, and only when he speaks ex cathedra or something like that.

Apparently Starr lied under oath himself on a few issues. Watch Burden of Proof on CNN. Lawyers on law are more informative than newscasters on law. (Even if they are all fallible). :)

Raining900 wrote in message ...

than

Why are you getting excited about the "possibility" of Starr lying, and not excited about the "proof" of Clinton lying?? He lied to a civil court, a federal grand jury, his staff, his family, his supporters, and the American people. Your "red herring" is old and starting to stink. Stick to Clinton's crimes.

homerr

From: "homerr"

Jazzoid: Why are you getting excited about the "possibility" of Starr lying, and not excited about the "proof" of Clinton lying??

Because I believe in fair legal process and innocent until proven guilty ("purgery" has NOT been proven,and I think it was sort of ironic turnaround that Starr himself was evasive in the same ways when he was asked by Congress about how he did NOT reveal things he should have revealed to the Judge who appointed him to explore the Lewinsky matter (about his own connections to the Paul Jones lawyers which would have caused him not to be appointed in the first place) and to Congress (exonerating Clinton of filegate, Whitewater right before the elections when he knew at that time that Clinton was innocent of these charges but instead he included in his report only the things that made Clinton look bad and that is bias and not appropriate for an "independent" counsel) and because I'm concerned about precedents this is setting and because I believe at heart this is a political matter and that taking politics so far as to impeach an elected president is dangerous. That's why I was gratified and amazed to see Starr's OWN ethics advisor quitting on him claiming he'd gone way beyond what a special prosecutor was supposed to do when he "testified". I think it's a scary thing to see ONE man have so much power that he answers to no man. Our government is set up to be a balance of power but this man has had absolute power and has NOT been objective, unbiased, but out to get Clinton from the start, one way or another. The Lewinsky matter should never even have been investigated in the first place.

It's been said by both sides that this position of independent council, the law that enabled this office to exist at all, with such power, will not ever be renewed when it expires in 1999. So many people of both sides see how dangerous this position itself is.

What really concerns me in all this, what really makes me angry, is that important matters that affect us all are not being attended to. I LIKE the democratic agenda for America (At least they are doing a better job than the republicans tosave medicare, control HMO's and patient rights, and in other ways their program is closer to my value system. ) ATtacking Clinton I see as a way of the Republicans attempting to derail democratic programs. It's dangerously dirty to threaten to impeach an elected president , when the REAL reason is political in the first place. Politicians are great at making something SEEM like something else. It's what they do well. All of them. The Republicans are making a big deal of a small matter for political reasons.

I hope that answers your question. :) If there's anyone infallible in here, it's the POSITION of the independent counsel. That's where the danger lies. And he EXPANDED that power even more (unethically) by going beyond fact giving and advocating impeachment in appearing in Congress. Not his role. Unethical. That's why Sam DAsh resigned in protest. His own man. Furthermore, purely subjectively, there is something about this man that just reminds me of that personality type that is pursuing his own shadow as he persecutes others. Just an impression. But when I saw that headline about his own ethics being questioned by his own man, it confirmed this sense of the man.

I just feel relieved (and a little amused) that the self-righteous Starr's unethical underbelly has been exposed.

IMO, the best line from Starr's testimony was (and I'm paraphrasing here)

Rep.: Mr. Starr, did you try to pressure Lewinsky to wear a wire to tape the President?

Mr. Starr: Well, we used a number of accepted law enforcement techniques including "consentual monitoring".

Sounds awfully Clinton-esque to me. Seesm to me Mr. Starr has abused his "power" much as Mr. Clinton did his. Something about glass, stones, houses, black, kettle, pot???

In article , [email] (Raining900) wrote:

the first

because

answers to

even have

the law

see as a

them. The

Unethical.

about his

the man.

In article , [email] wrote:

to the

the first

because

While not the most elegant prose, what problem did you have understanding it? Starr is not obligated to help with CLinton's defense, you are quite correct. However, when he spends 3.5 years investigating Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster, he is obligated to divulge that he was unable to find anything that he could indict Clinton on. Had it not been for the LEwinsky matter, all his work woul dhave been a waste of time, which I still think it is.

Wrong! He could have refused to testify and waited to be supoenaed (sp?). If he really was so damn ethical , as you seem to think, he would have refused to offer his opinions and merely presented facts and discussed the process. He should not be passing judgement - Independent Counsel, remember?

Campaign finance reform, HMO reform, Social Security, debt reduction, passing a real spending bill instead of that joke last month, to name a few.

In article , [email] wrote:

http://www.angelfire.com/va/nsnews/news.html