Ken Starr, Clinton investigator, dead at 76

YOOHOO STILL WAITING


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!!

 

I only waste my valuable time where necessary

Deopositions are under oath,


Excerpts of L.D. Brown's Deposition
In his Nov. 10, 1997 deposition, former Arkansas State Trooper said that he solicited new sexual partners for Clinton over a hundred times.

Excerpts of Danny Ferguson's Deposition
In his Dec. 10, 1997 deposition, President Clinton's co-defendant described his version of the events at the Excelsior Hotel, and a series of early-morning rendezvous between Clinton and Marilyn Jo Jenkins.

Excerpts of Roger Perry's Deposition
Former Arkansas State Trooper Roger Perry's deposition was held Nov. 11, 1997. Perry described approaching women on behalf of Clinton, and related several conversations with the then-governor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/legal.htm


refute what they said.

You are denying the Lewinsky deposition?

From the OIC report to the Congress requesting impeachment and removal so prosecution could begin

VI. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE INFORMATION THAT (i) President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had an understanding that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their relationship; and (ii) President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by suggesting that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit so that she would not be deposed, she would not contradict his testimony, and he could attempt to avoid questions about Ms. Lewinsky at his deposition. Based on their conversations and their past practice, both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship, as part of a scheme to obstruct justice in the Jones case. In pursuing this effort:

• the President suggested that Monica Lewinsky file an affidavit, which he knew would be false;

• the President had an interest in Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit because it would ‘‘lock in’’ her testimony, allowing the President to deny the sexual relationship under oath without fear of contradiction;

• Ms. Lewinsky signed and, on January 16, sent to the Court the false affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President as part of a motion to quash her deposition subpoena;

• the President’s attorney used the affidavit to object to questions about Ms. Lewinsky at his January 17 deposition; and

• when that failed, the President also lied under oath about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky at his civil deposition, including by the use of ‘‘cover stories’’ that he and Ms. Lewinsky had devised.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf

You are denying that he plea bargained the criminal charges accepting the suspension of his license to practice law for 5 years?

In a Deal, Clinton Avoids Indictment

With just hours left in office, President Clinton reached a deal with the independent counsel yesterday that ensures he will avoid indictment for his misleading statements about Monica S. Lewinsky. In exchange, Clinton offered prosecutor Robert W. Ray something he had never before been willing to give: a forthright admission that he gave false testimony under oath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/

You have posted bogus statement after bogus statement from the geto here can you get anything right?

Again for what exactly are you claiming he was held in contempt and then faced the 11 criminal charges brought by the OIC to which he entered a plea bargain? For what do you think he was impeached?

 

Good you agree, BJ Bill did NOT submit an affidavit and he also wasn't charged criminally!

Now as for the others I'll look at it


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

Tainted witness
The Arkansas trooper who corroborated David Hale's story received payments from the American Spectator.


#1 ...L.D. Brown, to reimburse him for the cost of chartering a private jet to fly to Washington in 1994 to meet with one of their reporters, and for "investigative services" he performed for the magazine in 1997.

But federal Whitewater investigators have expressed concerns that the payments to Brown, as well as his ties to conservative political activists, may have influenced him to provide erroneous or false information on several matters to independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Most important, Brown provided information to Starr's office that partially corroborated allegations against Clinton made by David L. Hale, a former Little Rock municipal court judge who has been the central witness to the independent counsel's Whitewater investigation.

Specifically, Brown told investigators that he witnessed a meeting between Clinton and Hale at the Arkansas Capitol during which Clinton purportedly pressured Hale to make a fraudulent and illegal loan to Susan McDougal, one of the Clintons' partners in their failed real estate venture. Some federal investigators questioned the veracity of Brown's claims to have witnessed the encounter.

The federal Whitewater investigators were unaware of the payments by the American Spectator Educational Foundation to Brown, and his ties to the conservative political activists. The investigators questioned the truthfulness of Brown's account for a variety of other reasons.

https://www.salon.com/1999/01/12/news_168/

#2 ...Deposition of Danny Ferguson
Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, drastically altered key elements of his eyewitness accounts in a way that made them significantly more favorable to the president, according to a review of recently released court documents.

In interviews in 1993, Ferguson said that he arranged the disputed encounter between the governor and Jones in a Little Rock, Ark., hotel suite at Clinton’s request. However, in a sworn deposition last December the former state bodyguard testified that it was Jones, not Clinton, who instigated the meeting by asking to be introduced to the governor.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-mar-21-mn-31121-story.html

#3...Deposition of Roger Perry

Troopers Who Accuse the President Are Questioned on Their Own Pasts

...But until lately, the troopers, Larry G. Patterson and Roger L. Perry, had been spared the sort of questioning that has been directed at President Clinton's personal life. Now, under closer scrutiny, it is apparent that they have had credibility problems of their own in the past.



By far the most serious is sworn testimony in two lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court here in which the two friends, along with a third trooper, admitted collaborating last year to falsify an account of a serious automobile accident in 1990. Mr. Perry was seeking $100,000 in insurance payments in the two suits.

The troopers could have have faced serious punishment by police superiors had the facts of the accident become known: that Mr. Patterson, drunk, had demolished a state police car while bar-hopping with the other two troopers.


"In my 17 years of doing this kind of work, they lied as bad as anyone I've ever known," the lawyer for the insurance company, Roy G. Sanders, said of Mr. Perry and Mr. Patterson in an interview this week.

Although the two troopers admit to misstatements about the accident, they deny that they conspired to defraud the insurance company.

Recently, the two men, who earn $40,000 a year as state troopers, have suggested that their accusations against Mr. Clinton could be made into a book.

On Wednesday, another Arkansas trooper, Danny Ferguson, issued a statement denying one of the gravest accusations the two had made: that the President had personally offered Mr. Ferguson a Federal job in exchange for help in quashing the stories about Mr. Clinton's marital infidelities while he was Governor of Arkansas.


In an interview today, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Perry insisted that their assertions about Mr. Clinton were motivated not by money or a desire for celebrity, but by pent-up fury over years of mistreatment while serving with Governor Clinton's personal security detail.

"You block roads for him," Mr. Patterson said. "You run all the personal errands, and then he forgets about you." Complaining that he even had to clean up after the Clintons' dog, Mr. Patterson added: "It eat at me. It eat at me. That man is leader of the free world, and he's a user."

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/24/...sident-are-questioned-on-their-own-pasts.html

WHAT ELSE YOU GOT, YOU STRUCK OUT ON ALL 3 OF THE ITEMS YOU ASSERTED??

 

False I showed you otherwise.

Travel expenses.............so what?

Yes he was being sued by Jones for his role in the matter. There was a uninterested 3rd party witness who gave a deposition. Ever hear of Pamela Blackard, she was the woman working with Jones that day and in her deposition corroborated Jones account that it was Ferguson who approached their kiosk and invited Jones to come and meet with Cltinon.

I don't care about their past I care about the Jones lawsuit. Their testimony had little to do with it anyway.

 

Sorry but BJ Bill did not submit an affidavit. Lie number 1
BJ Bill was not charged criminally. Lie number 2
All 3 "witnesses" credibility was called into question.

 

Yes he submitted the Lewinsky deposition into his defense. The false one he and Lewinsky created in an attempt to waylay her testimony. Stop with the phony denials.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
Starr presented the charges in the impeachment report and he later plea bargained the charges. To what do you claim he plea bargained?

Why do you keep harping on the State Troopers. Their depositions had nothing to do with the Starr investigation and the charges brought against Clinton except for Ferguson's statement about the events at the hotel that day. Ans I am more than happy to agree with you he lied about that. You just helped to destroy your already empty argument.

Jones had three contemporaneous witness including Blackard who confirmed it was Ferguson who approached Jones and talked her into meeting with Clinton.

 

Once more you are conflating Monica with BJ Bill. BJ Bill did NOT submit an affidavit. HE DID NOT.

So in your view, BJ Bill pleading to lying about sex was a possible criminal charge? Not a criminal charge but possible? Wow kinda like Trump and his pleading down his "charity" foundation, his "university", his illegally not renting to POC? ETC. So we can now say he was charged criminally but simply plead down? When his Corp is convicted for fraud, will that mean he's a criminal? Or since their already prosecuting his Corp, he's a criminal already? Just wan to be sure how to frame it with Donnie Diapers


Once more, all three troopers had lied, acknowledged they lied and even the prosecutors were wary of them.

 

Yes CLINTON submitted, HIS lawyer entered it into the record and affirmed it's truthfulness under oath.

(iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky;

And again thank you for confirming Ferguson is a liar

Are you withdrawing this post of yours now?

However, in a sworn deposition last December the former state bodyguard testified that it was Jones, not Clinton, who instigated the meeting by asking to be introduced to the governor.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-mar-21-mn-31121-story.html

His lies were about engaging in sex with a subordinate worker while on the job and rewarding her for granting those sexual favors in return. He was instructed that he SHALL give truthful testimonies to such inquires under the federal rules of evidence. His admitting doing so would aid the plaintiffs case in her lawsuit. HE SIGNED THE LAW INTO EFFECT. Why shouldn't it have applied to him?

 

Yes the facts which you can't seem to deal with. Again for what did plea bargain losing his license to practice law for 5 years admitting he had lied under oath.

 

Weird you ignored the question about Trump and if you consider BJ Bill being charged criminally since he took a plea deal, what do you think of ALL the pleas deals Trump has had?

 

YOU KEEP MAKING ASSERTIONS WITHOUT PROOF? Why is that? LINK TO BILL CLINTON'S AFFIDAVIT?

As far as the 3 troopers, it's all ready been shown they lied, they had no credibility, except to the right wingers who paid them perhaps

 

I would LOVE to see the charging paper work on BJ Bill getting criminally charged as you claim? Should be easy to get right?


Here it looks like this, Trump's ex lawyer who paid off some of his mistress's for him, and broke campaign finance laws doing it
https://www.justice.gov/file/1115596/download

Cohen Plea Deal Makes Trump 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator,' Watergate Prosecutor Says
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/22/cohen-plea-deal-trump-watergate-prosecutor

Feds Accuse Individual-1—Also Known as Trump—of a Crime in Michael Cohen’s Sentencing Memo
https://fortune.com/2018/12/07/feds-accuse-trump-crime-cohen-campaign-finance/


NOT to be confused with this one here

What we know about 'Unindicted Co-conspirator #1' in the indictment against the Trump Organization and its CFO

https://www.businessinsider.com/who...irator-1-trump-organization-indictment-2021-7

 

Again for what did plea bargain losing his license to practice law for 5 years admitting he had lied under oath.

For what did he plea bargain, what is it you are claiming?

The Starr Report is available online as is his plea bargain if you would LOVE to see them then go read them

This has nothing to do with Trump.

 

I have cited from the court documents and the Starr report. Clinton gave direct testimony not a affidavit it's called a deposition. HE entered the Lewinsky affidavit swearing it to be a true document in an attempt to stop her from being called to a deposition. That has all been explained to you and I have no obligation to keep explaining it to you along with those cites.

The 3 troopers had nothing to do with the Starr Investigation or charges against Clinton, I don't care about them. The only one that had anything to do with was Ferguson and I agree with you he was a liar and I trust you will not cite him again as uttering any truthful statements.

 

who will be the ken star for Trump, will Trump lie about about consensual affairs

 

This has nothing to do with Trump.

 

OK Your continued dodging noted.

1) No BJ Bill wasn't charged criminally, but Trump likely will be
2) BJ bill didn't submit an affidavit
3) Credibility of all 3 troopers was nada, 2 admitted lying, FBI didn't trust 3rd

 

But YOU claimed pleading down was basically being charged criminally right?

 

1) Clinton gave direct testimony Great you got it

2) HE entered the Lewinsky affidavit swearing it to be a true document Oops I guess not

3) The 3 troopers had nothing to do with the Starr Investigation. Even if they did, the FBI said their weren't credible and 2 admitting to lying about insurance fraud, 3rd wasn't credible to the FBI because he took money from the right wing spin machine going after BJ Bill

 

"Prolly deserved it"? What the hell does that mean?

You haven't answered any of my points, you're referring to what other case exactly and believe me I see Clinton for what he is.

 

Ultimately Clinton did plead guilty to his crimes, the evidence against him overwhelming, simply the DNC dominated Senate did not consider offences such as perjury a "high crime or misdemeanour" despite being a felony that could have sent him to prison for years. That is undeniable.

 

How can you "plead guilty" to charges which weren't brought? Not very reasonable, Rob.

 

You need to follow along if you're jumping into a convo

The other poster asserted

1) BJ Bill was CHARGED criminally. Care to link that for him as he's been unable to?

2) BJ Bill submitted an affidavit which was a lie. Care to link that?

3) He asserted 3 troopers were "credible" witness's, I showed the FBI doubted their reliability after payments from right wing *sswipes and that 2 admitted they lied about an auto accident trying to get insurance money. The 3rd was fired from another job for being untruthful.

 

That's not something he could be "sentenced" to. He was NOT charged with any crime, which you have, at times, acknowledged. Though you continue to waffle on this issue.

 

Yes it could be the Judge in the case recommended a LIFETIME ban along with the $90,000 fine she levied when she found him guilty. IC Ray because he had already paid $90,000 and restitution to the plaintiff. $900,000 that if he admitted his guilt and accepted a 5 year ban that would not prosecute the charges. He PLEA BARGAINED THE CHARGES BROUGHT.....................you are desperately dancing on the head of a pin with your distinctions without merit.