Ken Starr, Clinton investigator, dead at 76

Well he was that with them without admitting anything and that was after all the scandals before Jones. Go back to Gennifer Flowers which was a prelude, a preview of Paul Jones. Of course there was the infamous 60 Minutes Superbowl interview and the "I'm not some bimbo who stands by her man" Hillary proclimation when she knew full well the WHOLE story about Flowers and a woman named Charlotte Perry.


The other woman
" [Charlotte Perry] An African-American woman with three young children at home, Perry is the type of person who comes to mind when, as he is wont to do, the president talks about those who work hard and play by the rules. It was such folks whom Clinton said he wanted to serve when he asked us to elect him as president in the first place.

In February 1990, Charlotte Perry hoped that her hard work, integrity and many years of service to the state government were finally going to pay off. She applied for a better paying job as an administrative assistant at a state agency called the Arkansas Board of Review. The position paid slightly more than $17,500 a year.

But Perry didn't receive the promotion she clearly deserved. Instead, it went to another woman with less experience and fewer qualifications -- Gennifer Flowers, whom everyone around Little Rock knew to be the governor's girlfriend. An investigation of the matter by a state agency later determined that the hiring procedure that led to Flowers being hired over Perry was "improper" and the result of favoritism.

Flowers, seeking work, had approached Clinton about finding her a position with the state. There were, after all, surely perks to be had for being the governor's mistress, Flowers reasoned. Clinton turned over the dirty work of finding the appropriate position for Flowers to an assistant named Judy Gaddy. Gaddy tried hard to find something for Flowers, even landing her an interview with the Arkansas Historical Preservation Program as a multimedia specialist. But Flowers was found to be unqualified for that job.

On Feb. 23, 1990, even more desperate for work than before, Flowers wrote Clinton: "Bill, I've tried to explain my situation to you and how badly I need a job ... Unfortunately it looks like I have to pursue the lawsuit to hopefully get some money to live on, until I get employment."

The article then discusses how Flowers had been called to testify in the Larry Nichols lawsuit against Clinton for his abuse of power and government resources in having affairs with 5 women including Flowers. She wanted to use that to put more pressure on him to get her a state job, her night club singing wasn't paying the bills.

..
In March 1990, the job that Gennifer Flowers and Charlotte Perry were to compete for became available. At first glance, things did not look good for Flowers. She ranked ninth out of 11 applicants.

But then Flowers caught a break. On April 26, 1990, Don K. Barnes, the chairman of the Arkansas Board, abruptly changed the qualifications for the job. He did so at the direction of his boss, William Gaddy, the husband of Judy Gaddy, the governor's assistant to whom Clinton had earlier assigned the task of finding a job for Flowers.

The new requirements for the job now included experience with computers and public relations. As it happened, Flowers had listed those precise qualifications on her risumi a month earlier when she applied for the Arkansas Board of Review job."
https://www.salon.com/1998/09/11/newsa_11/

But she did file a complaint with Arkansas Grievance Review Committee which ruled in her favor and recommended back pay at the higher level. But as the article notes justice was not served as the committee's findings were not binding and the Clinton's guy who had been found to have engaged in favoritism in hiring a totally unqualified Flowers over Perry over ruled the decision and she got nothing.

What a swell guy is, just the kind of guy the Dems make HEROES!

 

Like a black man watering flowers and some hoping he had committed a crime even after he didn't? Yes, some can't deal with facts.

Keep sitting on that fence.

 

Lack of any thing of substance or factual rebuttal noted along with the bogus trying to claim I hoped a black man committed a crime. Can you even try to make some attempt at a civil debate?

If you think you can try again

If they are BS then refute it

Then why did he plea bargain the criminal charge?

Did Clinton lie under oath about his sexual relationship with a subordinate employee..................yes
Did he submit a false affidavit denying that relationship.............................yes
Did he suborn the perjury of another person...........................yes
Did he tamper with another witness............yes

Do you believe a boss accused of sexual harassment in the workplace should be able to lie about it in federal civil rights lawsuit?

If all you have is your hubris don't bother.

 

he was asked about a consensual affair under oath, we should do the same to Trump if we ever get him under oath...... right?

 

He was asked about having sex with subordinate employees in a workplace sexual harassment case where he was being sued by a former subordinate employee, whom had not only sexually harassed but sexually assaulted, where such inquires are REQUIRED to be answered and as Clinton was ORDERED to do so by the presiding judge. The testimony is required by the Molinari amendment which CLINTON SIGNED INTO LAW.



https://books.google.com/books?id=bKumwTZunZYC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=molinari+amendment+sexual+harassment&source=bl&ots=mIeGRTbwQJ&sig=ACfU3U2Yb2g2TvgAd7iEYI4rIXBtoCMXWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBzPuR6Z76AhXxsDEKHQ7KDZYQ6AF6BAguEAM#v=onepage&q=molinari amendment sexual harassment&f=false

Did Clinton lie under oath about his sexual relationship with a subordinate employee..................yes
Did he submit a false affidavit denying that relationship.............................yes
Did he suborn the perjury of another person...........................yes
Did he tamper with another witness............yes

Do you believe a boss accused of sexual harassment in the workplace should be able to lie about it in federal civil rights lawsuit?

And forever I have been told by feminist groups that when there is such a power imbalance the sex is never consensual. What happened to change that?

 

he was asked about a consensual affair under oath, that is just the facts

"And forever I have been told by feminist groups that when there is such a power imbalance the sex is never consensual. What happened to change that?'

just like 'No' means 'No'.... consent also means consent, she has made very clear over the years that it was consensual

 

With a subordinate employee while on the job........that is just the facts.
Which is subject to the federal rules of evidence as it supports the victim's case..........that is just the facts.
Which he then committed multiple felonies to avoid answering..........that is just the facts.

And again

And forever I have been told by feminist groups that when there is such a power imbalance the sex is never consensual. What happened to change that?

But of course he wasn't being sued by Lewinsky he was being sued by Jones where his sexual harassment was NOT consensual. So what's your point?

 

We’re it Trump’s blowjob, the partisans would have the exact opposite opinion of Starr than they hold now.

That was a huge waste of time and money. I never liked Clinton and never voted for him, but lying about sex shouldn’t be a crime, and it’s none of anyone’s business.

 

So bosses who sexually harass their employees should be able to lie about in court and even suborn the perjury of others denying their victims their rightful day in court? That is your position? It's none of anyone's business.

How about it a divorce and the wife is divorcing on grounds of adultery should the husband be able to lie and get all his girlfriends to lie in their depositions?

You do realize that Clinton himself much to the fanfare of not only the women's groups but his own wife signed into law the amendment which made it a REQUIREMENT under the federal rules of evidence that a boss give testimony to other subordinate workers who they were engage in sexual activity and any special treatment or rewards those who granted such favors were given. You actually object to that law?

 

And both reasons Trump was impeached were totally fabricated and never proven. No bribery and ZERO proof he led anyone to attack the capital. Democrat leaders across the country said far more obvious calls to violent action. Trump specifically said peaceful and nothing was said that can be interpreted at all to enter the capital.

Biden was caught on video admitting to a bribe.

 

Proven? What Trump did was out in the open, we saw it with our own eyes.
.

The proof is overwhelming.

Telling 74 million americans, for over a year, week after week, at every rally, on every appearance on television, that the only way democrats can win is to rig the election, before any ballot was ever cast, that democrats are stealing the election, that they are committing fraud, that they intend on destroying America, a narrative so wrong, so untruthful, a heinous rhetoric to a degree of which was hitherto unheard of by any candidate in history, It created the mantra, the welling anger, the volcanic juggernaut of rage that erupted on Jan 6, a directed mission to 'stop the steal' and resulted in millions in damage and 5 - 7 deaths. We are talking about a direct attack on Democracy.

Moreover, the above is a part of an overall scheme to subvert the election, documented in detail in this government report:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

No Democrat's speech ever advocated violence, nor is there any speech that led to violence, not in the fashion that Trump's speech led to the attack on the capitol. You have NO evidence against Dems. We have TONS of evidence on Trump, and how his rhetoric has led to physical violence, incessant threats against judicial and election officials.

Trump's fleeting reference to peace does not offset a year long campaign to incite hatred of Democrats by falsely claiming they stole the election, even before the first ballot was cast, and while continuing to do so until it culminated in a juggernaut of rage which erupted on 1/6.

A spoonful of sugar cannot sweeten a supertanker load of vitriol.

You obviously have no clue as to what bribery is.

There is absolutely no bribery occuring in that video. Bribery requires 'personal gain'. What Biden did was forward the foreign policy interest of the United States in the region.

Biden threatened to withhold loan guarantees to force the then president of Ukraine to fire the do nothing prosecutor, Viktor Shokin who wasn't investigating corruption in his country. That is NOT bribery, it's called 'foreign policy in the region' supported by NATO nations and the International Monetary Fund and the State Department.

You see, Obama didn't want to send in lethal weaponry to help Ukraine army with the then corrupt government, which is why we needed Shokin fired before we send them funds. But, of course, total ignorance calls it a 'bribe' and believes whatever it hears in the right wing media.

Are you really that uninformed on Foreign Policy, or have you been only listening to right wing echo chamber crapola?

sounds like the latter.

 

NOPE to those three, do better

 

Normally I'd agree but this isn't just lying in an interview etc it's under oath and that's perjury. He did obstruct justice, he did fail to pay his taxes. Clinton was guilty, he pled guilty after he left office and was duly punished, history justified Starr.

 

You are denying he submitted a false affidavit?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

You are denying he suborned the perjury of Lewinsky in creating and submitting a false affidavit?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

You are denying that in direct violation of Judge Wright's order he went over Betty Currie's testimony trying to get her to couch not only the "we were never alone" but the gifts too?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

And again
Then why did he plea bargain the criminal charge?
Do you believe a boss accused of sexual harassment in the workplace should be able to lie about it in federal civil rights lawsuit?

And I will add Judge Wright held him in contempt for all of the above so what do you have to refute it?

 

Same circumstances, but Trump. The witch-hunt cries would be epic.

 

Please, pretty please show me where he did that? Not where Kenn Starrs fishing "investigation" accuses him of it? Pretty please?

 

"In a deposition in January 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers. In his 2004 autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers. He stated it was only on one occasion in 1977"

 

I spend LOTS of time in Arkansas during that time for business and my family well connected in the state. It was FAR more than one and Clinton's word on the matter cannot be taken as truthful as he is a know perjurer in such matters. Try reading the book by the State Trooper.

Then Governor Clinton once told my grandmother who was a teacher in Pine Bluff that there were two men in his life he was ever afraid of one was his step-daddy the other was my grandfather. So yes I know everything there is to know about the man.

I note you avoided the issue in the post itself. Why was that?

 

Yet you cannot refute it.

Oh BELIEVE ME I CAN it is the history why don't not take my word for it and educate your own self. Hey prove to me there was a civil war in the late 1800's you might as well be asking.

You are flat denying what I posted? You are admitting you know nothing about the case and the civil contempt citation by the Judge Wright?

What is it you think he was charged with?

 

I'm saying Kenn Starr LIED and put out a politicized report , did the judge find him evasive in a civil suit? Yep

Should the years long, $55 million "investigation" had ever gotten to that point? NOPE as Kenn Star said so during Trumps impeachment!!!

 

Gosh right wingers wrote books and lied? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you

 

Yes she said he lied under oath, suborned perjury and tampered with witnesses. Fined him $90,000.

You said these things are not true

You are denying he submitted a false affidavit?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

You are denying he suborned the perjury of Lewinsky in creating and submitting a false affidavit?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

You are denying that in direct violation of Judge Wright's order he went over Betty Currie's testimony trying to get her to couch not only the "we were never alone" but the gifts too?
What is your premise for this postions you take?

Are you backing away from that now?

It wasn't one investigation. Whitewater and Paula Jones were two entirely separate matters. Clinton is ENTIRELY responsible for the point it got to. HE is the one who walked into a federal court and and committed multiple felonies. And then he walked into a federal grand jury and committed multiple felonies there. No one forced him to commit those felonies.

Starr put out the report he had to put out with ALL the evidence including that which would refute any attempts by Clinton to deny the facts. He was trying to deny it was sexual activity with a subordinate employee, who he then gave special treatment and rewards, the only way to refute that is to prove it was and it was by the order of the Judge he had to give truthful testimony to it.

 

More nonsense of the witch hunt

 

No, this is cut and dried, Clinton admitted it when he later pleaded guilty and was duly punished with fines and being banned from practicing law. The charges against Trump are more nebulous, can he be guilty of inciting an insurrection when he told his supporters to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard? Is he guilty of endangering Top Secret material when he was the President who decided what was Top Secret and what wasn't in the first place and it was held in a storeroom at his house which was secured by the Secret Service?

 

Sigh. Says the reasonable guy who thinks a drunk cop shooting an innocent woman in the face is okay because she prolly deserved it.

People who can’t see Mr Flim Flam for what he is, are a bit scary, honestly.