Ken Starr, Clinton investigator, dead at 76

Lack or rebuttal noted but now that you know the facts I can see why you have none.

 

What right-winger? What lies and prove it.

The only liars were Clinton and Lewinsky.

You do know that submitting a false affidavit is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice?

Judge Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court

"....In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.....

..."Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote....

...In finding that Clinton deliberately lied in the Jones deposition and his written answers to questions posed by her lawyers, Wright ordered Clinton to pay "any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders." Wright also said Clinton should repay the $1,202 she incurred in traveling to Washington at Clinton's request to oversee the deposition and said she was referring the matter to state judicial authorities in Arkansas who could disbar Clinton for violating the legal profession's rules of conduct...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm

 

Following Brock's article, in 1994 four troopers conducted interviews with various allegations about Clinton and subsequently the New York Daily News stated that "one of the troopers is an accused wife beater, another was caught sleeping on the job, a third pleaded guilty to starting a barroom brawl and a fourth allegedly slept with a fellow trooper's wife.''




Then in 1994 and 1995, Jerry Falwell paid $200,000 to Citizens for Honest Government, who in turn paid two Arkansas state troopers who had made allegations supporting a conspiracy about Vincent Foster in the Clinton Chronicles video.


The two troopers, Roger Perry and Larry Patterson, also were paid after making their allegations in the Jones-Clinton trial.



Trooper Patterson, whose name would always be linked with the allegations, retired from the state force in 1999. In 2000 he was named the police chief of Quitman, Arkansas. In 2005, Patterson was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about an unrelated incident.


In a 1998 article for Esquire magazine, Brock said he wished he had never written the original Spectator story.Following the admission, Brock publicly apologized to President Clinton for his Troopergate story, which he stated was written not "in the interest of good government or serious journalism," but as part of an "anti-Clinton crusade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#No_official_findings

 

What a pathetic Joke - Kangaroo Clown Show on Political Steroids. Same thing as with Mr. Trump.

It ain't a lie if the question was never allowed to be asked. What did the number of inches of cigar "Slick Willy" insterted into Monica's oval orifice have to do with "White Water" .. or Paula Jones for that matter..

In a legit "NON Kangaroo" process - the Lawyer says "Objection" .. the Judge says "Sustained" -- and that is that. How did Lewinski's name ever get mentioned ? "Object" - "Sustained"

A sad time for Justice .. Red pummeling away .. increasing Gov't power -- Stomping on Liberty .. Reagan and Daddy Bush War on Pot was still going full tilt at the time .. Big liberty stomping machine that was... garbage humans those two Should dig those two up and do nasty things to their remains like in the good old days when someone was really disliked --- like the fellow who first translated the Bible into language of common man.. Pope didn't like that bad boy ... Got dug up and burned after death ..

 

Sorry but someone committing perjury and obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury and witness tampering in a federal civil rights lawsuit is not a kangaroo anything. They were serious crimes in a serious matter.

That you question what Lewinsky had to do with Whtiewater shows and extreme lack of knowledge about the entire matter or just being obtuse about it since it has be explained over and over and over.

And Clinton's attorney's did object and was were overruled under the rules of federal evidence. He was REQUIRED to give the testimony under the Molinari amendment which HE signed into law.

 

Impugning the State Troopers on totally unconnected issues refutes nothing.

"In that story, The Times cited attorney Jackson’s claim that the troopers were “completely vulnerable to reprisals” for going on the record with their allegations against Clinton. The 1993 story reported that Jackson had received a verbal agreement from “an unnamed conservative financier” to establish what the lawyer called “a whistle-blower insurance policy,” but that Jackson had not obtained a formal contract.

On Tuesday Jackson reiterated that the troopers received no payment for coming forward and, at the time the stories were published, had no guarantees of help if they lost jobs as a consequence."
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-01-mn-34973-story.html

They testified under oath and their testimony was never refuted.

The Vince Foster suicide to avoid prison time was Whitewater not Lewinsky.

You have refuted nothing concerning the charges he faced and you can't because Clinton himself could not. He submitted a false affidavit why do you keep ignoring that fact? He lied under oath and was not only held in contempt but charged criminally. And Judge Wright even took the rare position of offering Clinton a bench trial on the contempt charge which he turned, he had NO DEFENSE. He was held in contempt, he was guilty what don't you understand here?

 

"Perjury" - "He committed Perjury" "Serious Crimes"

Lying about how many inches of cigar into monica's oval orifice -- neither Perjury .. nor Serious. The fact that questions of that nature were permitted .. not over-ruled .. is exactly what makes it a Kangaroo court.

"Extreme lack of knowledge" I laugh in your general direction .. as usual pretending that you are not commenting on your reflection.. and that it is someone else.

but do explain .. how this line of Lewinsky questioning was material to white water investigation .. the hoopty who in the doopty doo...

Dershowitz thought it was a problem . but Mr. "Extreme Knowledge" - is going to explain

This should be fun .. the floor is yours. Explain how the Molinari amendment required the objection be over-ruled under the rules of federal evidence .. which Clinton signed into Law.

 

The Judge ruled otherwise. Lying under oath about sexual activity with a subordinate employee and giving favors, rewards and special treatment to that employee when another is suing for sexual harassment in a federal civil rights lawsuit is a serious crime. It is called PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The law REQUIRES the accused to testify to such activity.

Why? It had nothing to do with Whitewater, that was a totally separate investigation about a totally separate matter why do you keep asking dumb questions?

I already did.

 

LINKIE PLEASE

 

I gave you a linkie, what do you need a linkie for?

"In that story, The Times cited attorney Jackson’s claim that the troopers were “completely vulnerable to reprisals” for going on the record with their allegations against Clinton. The 1993 story reported that Jackson had received a verbal agreement from “an unnamed conservative financier” to establish what the lawyer called “a whistle-blower insurance policy,” but that Jackson had not obtained a formal contract.

On Tuesday Jackson reiterated that the troopers received no payment for coming forward and, at the time the stories were published, had no guarantees of help if they lost jobs as a consequence."
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-01-mn-34973-story.html

 

You made 3 ASSERTIONS, PROVE THEM

"They testified under oath and their testimony was never refuted."

"He submitted a false affidavit"

"He ...not only held in contempt but charged criminally."

 

Your the one crying out that you are an expert .. if Lewinski had nothing to do with white-water .. then Special council had no business being involved.

"Judge Ruled Otherwise" - Can't have a Kangaroo court without a judge ruling otherwise now can we .. Duuuuhhhhhhhh .. who is being "Dumb" here" Mr. "Dumb Questions" ..albeit a question that showed that someone was that same descriptive adjective they trying to use on others.

Not material to Paula either --- a point you deftly evaded -- how many inches put up monica's who who that cigar ..

Come on Mr. Expertice .. thought you knew better then Dershowitz ? .. ohhh .. but sure liked him when fighting for your boy Carrot Top..

smell some hypocrisy brewing ..

 

The Attorney General Reno made it his business over his objections to being assigned the prosecution of it. It was separate from the Whitewater investigation.

Yes it was. You really should read up on this matter.

Concerning Judge Wrights recommendation to the Arkansas Bar requesting Clinton's disbarment because of his perjury and obstruction of justice


Hofstra Law Review
Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 7

"Finally, and perhaps most conclusive, Judge Wright herself ex-
pressly held that Clinton's testimony concerning his conduct with
Lewinsky was material to the Jones case.74 Before any false testimony
from Clinton, the court had rejected objections by Clinton's counsel to
interrogatories that required information about Clinton's relationship
with Lewinsky.75 Judge Wright held that Jones was "entitled to infor-
mation regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual
relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were
... state or federal employees."76....

.....Effectively taking judicial notice of the "immateriality" spin which
Clinton defenders had put on that ruling, Judge Wright later expressly
held that "contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that
evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the is-
sues in plaintiff's case."' Judge Wright repeated "that such evidence
might have been relevant to plaintiff's case," probative to "'establish,
among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the
part of the President."' 79"
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/

 

He's still making the false claim that Clinton was indicted?

 

Already did the Troopers YOU prove their testimony was refuted.

Those two have to be proven to you, you don't believe they occurred is that right?

Tell me what do you think he was charged with and why do you think the Judge held him in contempt and recommended he be disbarred while fining him $90,000? What do you think he sign a plea bargain for?

Try reading the post above this one citing the judge

You seem totally without ANY knowledge of what it was all about. Do I also have to prove he was impeached? You DO know that fact don't you?

 

Who me? Quote me saying he was served an indictment? I have CLEARLY explained to you he plea bargained the charges so the indictment was not server and no trial was necessary. Are you denying he plea bargained the criminal charges and was held in contempt of court by the Judge?

 

*LOL* There's more, too. Give it up.

 

Quote me saying he was served an indictment else give it up and deal with the facts. Are you denying he plea bargain being severed that indictment and face prosecution?

Do you even have a point on the subject here?

 

Thanks for posting .. and as you can see Total Kangarooland --- Read it for yourself ..completely imaterial nonsense .. and stated so.

Judge Wright "such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case" = we don't know .. so lets go on a fishing expedition... Kangarooland by definition. Consentual relationship is - in no way - evidence of a habit of unconsentual .. The reverse is true.

As soon as the prosecuter uncovered the relationship was consentual - (assuming he was allowed to ask questions about previous relationship at all which is questionable) - no more questioning allowded as there is nothing material after that point.

This was a joke ..sorry mate .. but again .. thanks for digging that gem out of the ashes.

 

Yeah we do no it is was not ruled immaterial she specifically said it was material but said that because they, Clinton and Lewinsky, had already committed perjury their testimony would be denied therefore it would not be pursued further but Jones would be able to enter the evidence of the other women which would suffice for her case. The crime had already been committed on the court at that point. You keep ignoring the fact he was held in contempt of court for it and paid a $90,000 fine what do you think that fine was for?

That it was consensual had no bearing on the perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury or witness tampering. It had no bearing on the lawsuit, that was part OF THE POINT. Lewinsky consented to the sexual activity and receive special treatment for it. That is the purpose of the law which required he supply truthful evidence. Why do you think the consensual nature changes anything?

Your responses or rather lack of them mate have been a joke and showed a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject. And no need to dig I've known about her ruling since she wrote it, mate.

 

YOU MADE THESE ASSERTIONS, YOUR PLACE TO BACK THEM UP


You made 3 ASSERTIONS, PROVE THEM

"They testified under oath and their testimony was never refuted."

LINK WHERE THEY WERE UNDER OATH?

"He submitted a false affidavit"

LINK TO CLINTON GIVING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT?


"He ...not only held in contempt but charged criminally."

Link to Clinton (either one) charged criminally?

Come on, you made the assertions, back them up!!

 

YOU STATED THIS about Bill Clinton


"He submitted a false affidavit"

"He ...not only held in contempt but charged criminally."


SHOW US!!!

 

Yep he was impeached for lying about a sexual relationship

Trump however was impeached twice, once for obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, second for inciting a riot!!

 

Nah now it's Clinton was criminally charged and lied on an affidavit , lol

 

What part of "Kangarooland" - are you not understanding. Why would you say "But the Judge ruled" .. Why would that come out of your mouth .. lest you have no understanding at all of what is being discussed.. or - no idea what a nonsensical fallacy you are comitting.

Do I need to explain this kindergarten style .. do you seriously not understand

Then you tell me I am ignoring something .. that is being brought up for the first time .. making it impossible for me to have ignored it.

You want to explain yourself ? --- as can't really move on to things relevant until you do .. Do you seriously not understand how #$%@# it is to cry "but the Judge Ruled" -- the one I am calling a Kangaroo.