Impeachment Hearings (293 posts)
278. mmac
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 5:45 PM/EST
Gayle
Considering that you've only heard one side of the story concerning the president -- Starr didn't include exculpatory evidence, but some was dug up -- I really have to hope and pray that you are never selected for jury duty.
279. lol gayle
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 6:16 PM/EST
mmac
now ive got u. youve criticized me for reading only what ive wanted to see. now its your turn lol. look at my post again. i just asked the question about blumenthal. too funny. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
280. now gayle
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 6:18 PM/EST
mmac
lets see whos being fair and reasonable. i want an apology and recognition of your mistake.
281. now my answer to my question
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 6:32 PM/EST
mmac
the answer to that question is not about what was spread to the media. if u would READ the question it asked does sydney blumenthal testimony put weight into the charge that clinton obstructed justice by telling lies to his aides and letting them repeat those lies to a GRAND JURY. in my opinion it does. i'll give you my reasons. first of all blumenthal says clinton told him she was a stalker and she wanted to have sex but he rebuffed her. among other things to discredit lewinsky. ok now in january blumenthal repeats those lies to a grand jury. the president could have a viable defense in saying he didnt know blumenthal would of been called before the grand jury. but i dont think he could win on that argument but lets say he does. 6 months later in june blumenthal was called again before the grand jury not once but two different times. now if clinton did not want to use his aides to lie before the grand jury he wouldve of told blumenthal, hey before u go to the grand jury for the second or third time i need to straighten the facts up. i was embarrassed to admit it the first time but now that your being called again i dont want u to perjure the facts. it was consensual inappropriate relationship. but lo and hehold clinton didnt do it. he wanted to continue the lie before a grand jury. remember in june the dress hadnt came out.
282. jimp
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 6:49 PM/EST
mmac
did u see that one too ;)
283. mmac
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 8:24 PM/EST
Gayle
Post #278 is my response to your #273.
Post #277 is my response to your #276.
Your post #280 is inaccurate, I don't owe an apology for anything, I didn't make any mistake.
Here are the facts: 1) Monica told the president that people called her "the stalker", so President Clinton was only repeating what she had told him. 2) The President did rebuff Monica prior to when their affair (for lack of a better word) began. It started out as a 'friendship' first. So if that was repeated to anyone it was the truth, not a lie.
284. your wrong again gayle
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 8:41 PM/EST
mmac
your post 277 says that i was prejudging. i was only asking a queston for discussion in post 276. and in your post 277 u talked about the media my question in post 276 has nothing to do about the media. so yes u do owe me an apology and a recognition of your mistake. read post 276 again. CAREFULLY.
285. gayle
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 8:47 PM/EST
mmac
have u found it yet ;)
286. come on gayle
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 8:51 PM/EST
mmac
i thought u guys were the "reasonable" and "fair" thinkers of this group. i was the unreasonable and unfair one. well ive pointed this out because im the one when i make a mistake have admitted and apologize for it. that in my books are reasonable and fair. imagine a conservative being reasonable and fair and liberals being unreasonable and unfair. a novelty idea huh.
287. jimp
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 8:56 PM/EST
mmac
ohhhhhhhh jimp u still around lol.
288. mmac
Tue, Feb 9, 1999 - 9:52 PM/EST
Gayle
Whatever you want mmac. I'm sorry I went beyond what you asked.
289. mmac
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 2:49 AM/EST
Gayle
Eventus stultorum magister. Though I'm not sure even that will help.
And that's my last word.
290. Facts?
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 10:35 AM/EST
McRostie
In the preceding exchanges, it seems to me that both mmac and Gayle are drawing some conclusions as to what the "facts" are. As to mmac's quetion to me as to whether Blumenfeld's testimony lends credibility to the obstuction of justice charge, sure it does, if you accept the Manager's interpretation of that testimony and why and how it cam about.
And even admitting that possibility, I still come down on the side that says the conduct alleged does not amount to an "other high crimg or misdemeanor". And no, mmac, that does not mean I'm encouraging children to lie and obstruct justice. I'm fully aware of the provision in the Constitution about criminal trial after the conclusion of the President's term in office.
In that regard, I would suggest that a criminal trial, if there ever is one, is where you should make your attempt to uphold the law, not in the Impeachment "trial"which, according to most Constitutional experts, should have to do with the preservation of the Union, not the law.
291. I AM SO D*** TIRED OF THIS!!!
Wed, Feb 10, 1999 - 9:12 PM/EST
JimP
We are all at essentially the same positions we had when the Group began. We, in this regard, reflect the nation. Several of us, in our introductions said exactly the same as the title of this post.
In this regard, Reality Check is not succeeding. We have heard each other, but we have not listened. We have explained positions, but have not moved to new ground.
I do't know what "Eventus stultorum magister" means, and don't particularly give a hoot. I hope it means that the event is stultified the best of us, and lets change the subject.
I will not likely post to this thread again.
Regards,
Jim
PS. How's that for stultifying a communication? Sorry.
