From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #51 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, January 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 051 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:46:35 -0800 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: [Fwd: :-))] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------49B030416195 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roc-ers, forwarded FYI. History is great stuff. Skip. > > > >THIS APPEARED IN A 1968 ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN: > > > >2000 years ago . . . A Current Problem The Imperial > >Chancellor, Kung-sun Hung, petitioned the Emperor, saying: > >"The people should not be allowed to possess bows or > >crossbows. When 10 bandits bend their crossbows to the full, > >a hundred officials dare not advance.... If the people are > >not permitted to possess bows or crossbows, then thieves and > >robbers will carry only short weapons, and when 2 groups > >carrying short weapons meet, the larger number will be > >victorious.... In your subject's humble opinion, it will be > >advantageous to forbid the people to carry bows or > >crossbows." > > > >When the Emperor sent down this suggestion to his council > >for discussion an elder, Shou-wang, replied, saying: > > > >"Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the 5 > >kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each > >other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When > >people lived in peace, these weapons were used to control > >the fierce animals and to be prepared against emergencies. > >If there were military affairs, then these weapons were used > >to set up defense and to form battle arrays.... > > > >"Your subject has heard that the Sage Rulers brought the > >people together and practiced shooting to demonstrate > >instructions, and he has never heard any prohibition on bows > >or arrows. > > > >"Furthermore, the cause for prohibition is that the bandits > >use them to attack and rob. The crime of attacking and > >robbing is subject to death; yet that they have not been > >stopped is because the great law- breakers do not care, > >indeed, to avoid severe punishment. Should the suggested > >prohibition be enforced, your subject fears that wicked > >persons will still carry weapons and the officials will not > >be able to stop them from carrying them, and that the good > >people who keep their weapons for self-defense will > >encounter the prohibition of the law. This will make the > >power of robbers exclusive and take away the means of > >defense from the people...." > > > >When the petition was presented, the Son of Heaven > >questioned the Imperial Chancellor, Hung, who promptly > >withdrew his suggestion. -from The History of the Han > >Dynasty, 124 B.C. > > > >This documented account was sent in by NRA Member John Kirby > >who came across it while doing research for the Far East > >Department of the University of Washington. It is a striking > >example of the fact that the fight to preserve the basic > >right of the people to bear arms changes little wtth the > >passage of the centuries. > > > >-- - --------------49B030416195 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from vortex.worldaccessnet.com (worldaccessnet.com [206.190.139.1]) by mailhub.pacifier.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22547; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by vortex.worldaccessnet.com id m0xvE0t-000dNyC; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:13:11 -0800 (PST) (Smail3.2.0.91#4) Received: from world148.worldaccessnet.com(209.17.80.53), claiming to be "cousingrace.worldaccessnet.com" via SMTP by worldaccessnet.com, id smtpdBAAa0065S; Wed Jan 21 20:13:02 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19980121195402.3da7b1c4@worldaccessnet.com> X-Sender: cousingrace@worldaccessnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:54:02 To: WAP2697@aol.com From: Bob Keene Subject: :-)) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's unfornutate that this came on a joke list, it's no joke. Bob for ______________________________________________ >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:47:47 -0800 (PST) >Subject: :-)) >From: R R Neuswanger >To: JOKE-L >Reply-To: R R Neuswanger >X-Sender: JOKE-L >X-Loop: listserv@lserv.com > >THIS APPEARED IN A 1968 ISSUE OF THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN: > >2000 years ago . . . A Current Problem The Imperial >Chancellor, Kung-sun Hung, petitioned the Emperor, saying: >"The people should not be allowed to possess bows or >crossbows. When 10 bandits bend their crossbows to the full, >a hundred officials dare not advance.... If the people are >not permitted to possess bows or crossbows, then thieves and >robbers will carry only short weapons, and when 2 groups >carrying short weapons meet, the larger number will be >victorious.... In your subject's humble opinion, it will be >advantageous to forbid the people to carry bows or >crossbows." > >When the Emperor sent down this suggestion to his council >for discussion an elder, Shou-wang, replied, saying: > >"Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the 5 >kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each >other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When >people lived in peace, these weapons were used to control >the fierce animals and to be prepared against emergencies. >If there were military affairs, then these weapons were used >to set up defense and to form battle arrays.... > >"Your subject has heard that the Sage Rulers brought the >people together and practiced shooting to demonstrate >instructions, and he has never heard any prohibition on bows >or arrows. > >"Furthermore, the cause for prohibition is that the bandits >use them to attack and rob. The crime of attacking and >robbing is subject to death; yet that they have not been >stopped is because the great law- breakers do not care, >indeed, to avoid severe punishment. Should the suggested >prohibition be enforced, your subject fears that wicked >persons will still carry weapons and the officials will not >be able to stop them from carrying them, and that the good >people who keep their weapons for self-defense will >encounter the prohibition of the law. This will make the >power of robbers exclusive and take away the means of >defense from the people...." > >When the petition was presented, the Son of Heaven >questioned the Imperial Chancellor, Hung, who promptly >withdrew his suggestion. -from The History of the Han >Dynasty, 124 B.C. > >This documented account was sent in by NRA Member John Kirby >who came across it while doing research for the Far East >Department of the University of Washington. It is a striking >example of the fact that the fight to preserve the basic >right of the people to bear arms changes little wtth the >passage of the centuries. > >-- >Joke-L > > > ______________________________________________________________________ , patron saint to the "terminally" confused computerists! the Self-Sufficiency Forum | http://www.worldaccessnet.com/%7Ecousing/ | [Bob Keene] | PO Box 69, Amboy, WA 98601-0069 |(360)247-5256 (FAX by request) Life Member Emeritus - NorthWest Association of Book Publishers - --------------49B030416195-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 98 13:36:33 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Unintended Consequences and BATF (fwd) On Jan 22, David Phillips wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reposted from another (small) list: +-------------------------------------------------- John Ross has learned that persons identifying themselves as BATF agents have approached vendors of "Unintended Consequences" at gun shows in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania threatening the sellers with enforcement actions if they continued to sell the book. Accurate Press is offering a $10,000 reward for information which leads to the firing, disciplining or prosecution of any federal agent or employee found guilty of this misconduct. Does anyone have any information? You are requested to cross-post and otherwise disseminate this item. Please advise John or myself (336-282-6024). Jim Jeffries +-------------------------------------------------- I don't have a contact for Mr. Ross, but he posts to rec.guns sometimes. Mr. Jeffries wrote one of the book jacket blurbs on the back of Unintended Consequences. If you haven't read UC, get it (preferably at a gun show :-) ) and read it soon. - -- David Phillips sasdvp@sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. Don't Tread on Me DVC 35* 47'N 78* 47'W [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:03:40 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: RE: BIBLICAL BELIEFS DESTROYED CLINTON?? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:13:46 -0500 From: Carol Moore Reply-To: act@efn.org To: Waco List from Subject: RE: BIBLICAL BELIEFS DESTROYED CLINTON?? BIBLICAL BELIEFS DESTROYED CLINTON?? According to the Jan. 22, 1998 Washington Times, both Arkansas Trooper Larry Patterson and Monica Lewinsky have alleged that Clinton said he had researched the Bible and found that oral sex is not considered adultery. (I don't know if that's an actual statement in the Bible or if the fact it doesn't mention it's adultery means it's ok.) This certainly might be seen as a certain kind of justice that Bill Clinton might have gained some of his moral impetus for adultery from the Bible=96even as he justified the killing of David Koresh and his friends, wives and children because of their "cultist" beliefs, drawn from the Bible, that teenage girls were "of age" and that men might indulge in polygamy. Certainly looks like his words of April 20, 1993 have come back to haunt him... - -------------------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release April 20, 1993 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS 1:36 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end of this tragedy in Waco. I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over the last seven weeks. And I hope very much that the difficult situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what has been learned now. I will say this, however. I was, frankly, surprised would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves. (Applause.) There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of fanaticism all across the world. And we may have to confront it again. And I want to know whether there is anything we can do, particularly when there are children involved. But I do think it is important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the people who killed others and then killed themselves. End. CarolMoore@Kreative.net http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:05:40 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: The Pheasant and the Bull (fwd) I think this story could be the clintons epitaph: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >The Pheasant and the Bull > >A pheasant was standing in a field chatting to a bull. "I would >love to be able to get to the top of yonder tree', sighed the pheasant, >'but I haven't got the energy'. >'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the >bull. 'They're packed with nutrients'. >The pheasant pecked at a lump of dung and found that it gave him >enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next >day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. And so >on. Finally, after a fortnight, there he was proudly perched at the >top of the tree. >Whereupon he was spotted by a farmer who dashed into the farmhouse, >emerged with a shotgun, and shot the pheasant right out of the tree. > >Moral of the Story: >Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:42:42 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Unintended Consequences and BATF >Reposted from another (small) list: >+-------------------------------------------------- > >John Ross has learned that persons identifying themselves as BATF agents have >approached vendors of "Unintended Consequences" at gun shows in Ohio, Michigan >and Pennsylvania threatening the sellers with enforcement actions if they >continued to sell the book. Accurate Press is offering a $10,000 reward for >information which leads to the firing, disciplining or prosecution of any >federal agent or employee found guilty of this misconduct. Does anyone >have any information? > >You are requested to cross-post and otherwise >disseminate this item. Please advise John or myself (336-282-6024). > >Jim Jeffries >+-------------------------------------------------- > >I don't have a contact for Mr. Ross, but he posts to rec.guns >sometimes. Mr. Jeffries wrote one of the book jacket blurbs on the >back of Unintended Consequences. If you haven't read UC, get it >(preferably at a gun show :-) ) and read it soon. > > >-- >David Phillips sasdvp@sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC >If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. >Don't Tread on Me DVC 35* 47'N 78* 47'W > > - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:23:56 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: zippergate From: Bill Nalty Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:17:45 -0600 Subject: CAS: Klayman predicts that 'the cat with 90 lives' will resign in . . . http://www.opinioninc.com Opinion, Inc. January 22, 1998 'Oh, Shucks.' Sexgate Accelerates By Tom Fitton A tremendous amount of news today in the metastasizing scandal linking President Clinton to an adulterous affair with a young White House intern and a criminal coverup of that affair. Judicial Watch's Larry Klayman predicted today that if the charges turn out to be true, President Clinton will be out of the Oval Office in "three to four weeks." Based on the news developments we recount below for you, this may be generous time frame. The Big Three Networks led their broadcasts with the story on Thursday night. CBS spent the first 17 minutes of its broadcasts on the story. CBS, ABC, and CNN announced specials on the burgeoning scandal. CBS reported tonight that tapes that Linda Tripp made of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky make mention of four other women who were having affairs with Clinton. Three of those women worked in the White House. Shelia Lawrence, the widow of Larry Lawrence, the Clinton donor who bought himself an ambassadorship and an undeserved burial place in sacred Arlington Cemetery, was reportedly subpoenaed by Paula Jones' lawyers. Columnist Arianna Huffington reported in her column in The New York Post that "rumors of the affair" have been floating around and had "been widely discussed in the upstairs-downstairs world of the Lawrence family's staff, many of whom had to sign confidentiality agreements when they were fired." Ms. Lawrence, a former casino security guard appointed by Clinton to the World Conversation League, called the allegations "outrageous" and swore in an affidavit that she had "no relevant information" to contribute to the Jones case. No denial yet from Ms. Lawrence. The woman of the moment, Monica Lewinsky, will almost certainly assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Friday morning rather than testify to Jones' lawyers about her relationship with Clinton. NBC reported tonight that immunity negotiations between Kenneth Starr and Lewinsky's lawyers have reached "an impasse." Lewinsky wants full immunity, but Starr only wishes to give her partial immunity. (The deposition has now been postponed. Jump here for the AP story.) As investigative reporter Chris Ruddy has noted, Starr has had his problems with this sort of situation -- he gave Webb Hubbell immunity without getting proffer of testimony from him. When Hubbell clammed up, Starr was helpless. Let's hope he's learned his lesson. President Clinton has yet to categorically deny in public a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Clinton supposedly denied it under oath though in his Jones deposition. But it does him no good to compound that lie with more lies -- hence his current hedging. Newsweek and The Washington Post reports that Clinton and Lewinsky exchanged gifts. (Newsweek reports in a special Internet report [linked below] that Clinton gave Lewinsky a dress.) CBS reported that Clinton admitted in his sworn Jones deposition to exchanging gifts (Newsweek's Michael Isikoff on MSNBC: "innocent little trinkets") with Lewinsky. CBS also reported that Clinton, under oath, "acknowledged that it was possible that [Lewinsky] saw him at odd hours in the West Wing, perhaps to deliver documents." CBS said White House logs show Lewinsky was admitted to the White House as recently as last month. In her odd hour visits to the West Wing, Lewinsky reportedly signed in to see Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary. CBS said Ms. Currie was surprised at home by FBI agents with a subpoena Wednesday night. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reported in his special Internet report that delivery receipts show "'that Lewinsky sent packages addressed to the White House on nine separate occasions between October 7, 1997, and December 8, 1997.'" Betty Currie received the packages, one of which was "a sexually-provocative audio tape for President Clinton." (Isikoff's Newsweek piece is chock full of interesting details, we encourage you to follow the link below and read the full text of the article.) CNN reported Thursday evening that on one of the tapes, Lewinsky told Tripp that Clinton said "'That there is no evidence, so you can deny, deny, deny.'" Another tape has the actual voice of Clinton leaving a phone message for Lewinsky at home: "Oh, shucks. I wish you were there, I want to talk." The Washington Times reported today that Clinton is quoted by Lewinsky on the Tripp tapes as saying that he doesn't consider oral sex to be adultery. This peculiar interpretation of his marriage vows should be of interest, if not surprise (we hope), to poor Miss Hillary. The Washington Times reminded readers that this Clintonian definition of adultery jibes with information provided by "'Arkansas Trooper Larry Patterson, a member of Mr. Clinton's gubernatorial detail in Little Rock, that Mr. Clinton told him he had "researched the Bible and oral sex isn't considered adultery.'" Mr. Patterson said he often stood guard during Mr. Clinton's oral-sex sessions." Lewinsky says on the tapes that similar sexcapades took place in a room off the Oval Office. Forgive the salacious details, but they're important. The question whether Mr. Clinton had an "improper" sexual relationship with Lewinsky goes to motive (not to mention perjury -- Clinton denied under oath an affair with Lewinsky). Newsweek's Isikoff, who listened to 90 minutes of the Tripp tapes, says that Lewinsky gave off "the aroma of potential blackmail...an awful inducement for Vernon Jordan to got to great lengths to find her employment." Not to mention Clinton to tell her to "deny, deny, deny." Speaking of Jordan: Longtime Clinton adviser and buddy Vernon Jordan has been implicated in the Lewinsky hush effort, telling her, according the Isikoff Newsweek account, "'They can't prove anything. If they thought they could, your answer is it didn't happen, it wasn't me.' He told her that witnesses are never indicted for perjury in civil cases." In fact, one can be indicted for perjury in civil cases. Jordan seems to be trying to get Lewinsky to lie through a lie. This conversation allegedly took place late last year in the back of Jordan's limousine in Washington. Mr. Jordan, who will testify under oath to a grand jury on the matter, made a statement Thursday that was remarkable for what it did not say. Speaking to a packed news conference (no questions allowed, of course) Jordan said in part (according to the AP): 'I want to say to you absolutely and unequivocally that Ms. Lewinsky told me in no uncertain terms that she did not have a sexual relationship with the president. At no time did I ever say, suggest or intimate to her that she should lie.' This is not a denial that Lewinsky had a sexual relationship with Clinton, only that she supposedly told Jordan that she did not. And as with Clinton, Jordan has not described what he did suggest to Lewinsky about her imminent testimony in the Jones case. Jordan implied his efforts to get Lewinsky a job was an act of Christian charity. No explanation if he normally set up White House interns with lawyers or discussed their possible sexual relations with President Clinton. Revlon, the company that gave Lewinsky a job offer (rescinded yesterday) at Jordan's urging, gave Webb Hubbell a consulting contract back in 1994 (worth about $100,000) after Jordan's intervention. There is also a smoking gun memorandum that almost certainly can be traced to the Clinton gang. Newsweek reports that Lewinsky gave Tripp a list of talking points designed to color Tipp's testimony about Tipp's run in with Kathleen Willey outside the Oval Office: 'Points to make in affidavit,' it reads. Tripp is to modify comments she had made to Newsweek back in July --that she had seen Willey coming out of the Oval Office with her make-up smeared. Tripp is now to tell Jones's lawyers that 'you do not believe that what she claimed happened really happened. You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared her lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc.' The document also seems to reflect concerns that Tripp has already told others about Lewinsky's claims of a sexual relationship with the president. In case Tripp is questioned about the rumors about Lewinsky by Jones's lawyers, the talking points suggest that she say Lewinsky 'turned out to be this huge liar' who 'left the White House because she was stalking the P or something like that.'" Lewinsky's conveying that document to Tripp, if indeed she did, is a crime. Whoever wrote the document committed a crime as well. (To put kindly, it is pretty darn clear that Ms. Lewinsky did not have the wherewithal to have come up with such a document.) It occurs to us that, in addition to Clinton and Jordan, that Mr. Bennett might come under investigation here as well. Icing on the cake, we say. To close, The Washington Post reported Thursday that Clinton finally admitted in his sworn deposition last week that yes, he did have an affair with Gennifer Flowers. Clinton "categorically denied" this in the famous 1992 "60 Minutes" interview. Ms. Flowers is all over the news again, quite rightly feeling "vindicated" by Clinton's admission. Strange how things turn out. Clinton was introduced to the American people in a big way due to Flowers' allegations back in early 1992. Nice to have Gennifer around again, five years later, for the close of the show. Opinion, Inc. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:37:53 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: What Gate? By official decree, the New York Bureau Chief of The Idaho Observer, Patricia Naill, has declared the name of the latest Clinton Scandal to be: FORNIGATE!!! She says she didn't make it up, and I was leaning toward Tailgate prior to the decree, but I think she's absolutely correct. Fornigate it is! - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:52:40 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Clinton's think they can do no wrong - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:51:54 -0600 Subject: CAS: CLINTONS THINK THEY CAN DO NO WRONG NY Post January 23, 1998 CLINTONS THINK THEY CAN DO NO WRONG By ANDREA PEYSER THE Clintons' marital waltz, whether swaddled in swimming attire or Sunday best, is starting to resemble a dance to the death. They were elected to office five years ago as a two-headed creature, entirely interdependent. Partners in life, in governance and crime. And denial. So now, as we've become privy to the spectacle of Bill Clinton unzipped, there is Hillary, on cue, zipping him up. "I believe this is a continuation of a lot of political accusations and attacks that my husband has been subjected to," quoth Mrs. Clinton, cool as marble. "Since my husband has been so successful in changing the direction of this country ... I think it has been very hard for his opponents to accept." In a way, it is fitting that Mrs. Clinton, ostensibly the victim in this uproarious set piece, would instead play co-conspirator, enabler and cheerleader. For when all is said, it will be revealed that the villainy of the man she calls husband isn't really about sex. Though sex - compulsive, irresponsible, crude - is its greatest symptom. And it isn't entirely about obstruction of justice - though that is the sin that may wind up taking them both down. The infamy of the Clinton White House stems from the grand and deluded belief that the current tenants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. can do no wrong. Dare stand in their way - complain, yell, sue - and you may find yourself among the bruised bodies strewn in the wake of a political machine without a soul. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, as she confided her tale to a friend, the sex between herself and "The Creep," gives a fuzzy, yet familiar, picture of the Clinton we know edging into sharp focus. "The Big He," says Monica, was "in denial," not only over his legally sticky encounter with Paula Jones, but the possibility that he'll ever be expected to pay for it. What's more, says she, apparently parroting a decidedly male spin, she must deny the affair. After all, oral sex alone doesn't really constitute adultery. Does it? Now, when Clinton denies a "sexual" relationship, you wonder what this man, whose denial runs deep, really means by the phrase. Still, the greatest undercurrent among Monica's confessions, true or exaggerated, isn't frustration. It's fear. Despite the Clintons' protestations of being victims of their political enemies, there have been too many examples of the selfish entitlement and raw fury that has powered the Clinton White House. It started almost Day 1. When Bill and Hillary, just in from Arkansas, wanted to replace staffers in the travel office with friends of their choosing, pink slips weren't good enough. They leveled what proved to be bogus allegations of financial misdeeds against a handful of loyal servants who lived one paycheck to the next. The game of hardball took on new dimensions with Paula Jones, a woman Clinton can't seem to remember. Mere denial of a sexual come-on wasn't enough. Clinton's lawyer and soul mate, Bob Bennett, threatened to drag the girl by her hair through the mud - finally backing off only when Clinton's loyalists at NOW got fed up. But then, Paula was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for audit. A coincidence? Was it also a coincidence that Clinton crony Webster Hubbell shut his mouth about Whitewater after allegedly being paid by a New York conglomerate owned by Ronald Perelman? And that same conglomerate found a job for Monica Lewinsky after she moved out of Washington, away from those pesky prosecutors seeking out evidence of Clinton's crime? Running roughshod over enemies - then crying "politics" when called on it - is the essence of the Bill-Hill ego. This kind of coercion, disregard of individual rights, is at the core of the allegations leveled by Monica Lewinsky. That's why it's been amusing these last couple of nights to watch pundits struggle mightily with their guilt for having to focus on sex - as if it were the most trivial thing to chat about in the world. Worst of the lot was Charles Grodin - how did this B-movie actor ever get a talk show? - insisting that the country had much more important things to talk about than the presidential privates. But if Clinton's psychic disease did not have sex as its chief symptom; if he were addicted to crack and coerced his dealer to lie; if he made his bookie fib for him, I doubt people would try to make his problem out as trivial. And his problem isn't merely sex. It's addiction. He and Hillary have been trampling on people's rights far too long. In a way, it's fortunate Clinton's pathology expresses itself in a zipper problem. He will get stuck in it. MORE NEWS Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of the New York Post is prohibited. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------ - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:10:40 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: James Norman on Zippergate - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Norman Subject: "Deep Water" (was Tripp's redactions) Ray: Tried to post this reply a couple of times last night but mail box bounced it back. Here goes again. JN At 05:11 PM 1/22/98 -0800, you wrote: >>In a message dated 98-01-22 16:00:46 EST, you write: >> >><< For the eight pages dedicated to Tripp, the last three are left completely >> blank and it looks like the bottom of the 5th page was also whited out. JN >>>> >> >>Although we do not KNOW, I would GUESS that the redacted material in Linda R. >>Tripp's "Fiske Investigation" FBI FD-302 related in substantial part to the >>handling of documents in Foster's office -- that is, items specifically >>related to what was originally going to be the topic of the "second" Fiske >>Report, re document handling in Foster's office during the approximate time >>frame 7/20/93 - 7/28/93 and whether there was any obstruction of justice, etc. >> >>This topic will (eventually, I assume) be the subject of a future Starr OIC >>report -- the Starr OIC "death investigation" re Foster is officially over >>with the writing of the Starr report on the death that was turned into the >>three-judge panel last July 15 and made public (with the addition of the >>Knowlton Insert) last October 10. The Starr investigation into the Foster >>office document handling issues is, so far as I know, ongoing. . . >> >>Warm regards, >>Hugh S. > >-- I agree with your analysis. But future Starr report or not, I have seen >quite a bit of document handling stuff show up in the most recent Senate >volumes (which I received last week) that was redacted in the earlier >volumes. Compare Nussbaum interview on 103-889, page 21929 (which was 80% >redacted) to 104-869 vol 1, page 232 (no redactions). > My belief, as you all know, is that there is a significant national security component to the Foster cover-up. The curious redactions of Linda Tripp's and other's 302 reports may be indicative of this. True, they may deal with document-handling issues after Foster's death. But then that would be the crux of any national security issue. Hence, the redactions might coincide with an uncompleted Fiske report on that matter, but not be caused by it. Indeed, a key issue is what happened to several sets of known documents: two NSA binders VWF had in Bernie's safe, and thick, sealed envelopes addressed to Janet Reno and William Kennedy. I suspect those related to Inslaw (a hot topic at that moment) and Systematics (where Kennedy's father had been a director), bank surveilance and money laundering. Multiple good sources have confirmed as much. My belief is reinforced by several other items which have come to light in connection with the Tripp/Lewinsky developments. Linda Tripp has had a very interesting career. 1.) She worked in BOTH the Bush and Clinton WH in very sensitive positions. Positions where a security clearance would be essential. 2.) She moved to the Pentagon, to a "public affairs" post. As non other than Lars-Erick Nelson pointed out in today's NY Daily news that she worked in "covert" matters there. 3.) Today's NYT reports Tripp is paid a salary of $88,173, has a top-secret clearance "and 'blanket' travel orders, which allow her to travel as she sees fit." 4.) In one of three previously unpublished depositions of Tripp in Vol 5 of the Senate Banking Committee report, which some of us nearly broke our backs on last week, Tripp says that at the WH she was paid far more than either Betsy Pond or Deborah Gorham and acted as their defacto manager. 5.) Also in Vol 5, there is a curious exchange in which Dem counsel Lance Cole asks Tripp if she has ever heard the term "Deep Water," and whether it applied to HER. She denied it, adamantly. But the question lingers: Is Linda Tripp the "Whitewater" equivalent of "Deep Throat" in Watergate? If not, who is? All these items would be consistent with, but not proof of, some longer-term, larger role of Tripp with the Intelligence Community. In a sense, Bob Bennett may be partially right when he says he smells a rat. I believe these sexcapade charges, and the media's orgiastic stampede all of a sudden to persue them, is equivalent to the ouster of Richard Nixon for a "two bit burglary" coverup. In fact, it is a diversion to remove a mortally flawed and wounded king without having to reveal the darker misdeeds committed, including condoning and possibly profiting from the trade in state secrets. Jim Norman ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------ - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #51 ************************