Woman who claimed Justice Kavanaugh raped her now admits they’ve never even met.

1) The special council was tasked with investigating white water ... the Monica "fruit of the poisoned tree" came out of that.
2) Please cite the "Management Law" from the 90's stating that the President can not have relations with his underlings ?
3) Once you have established (2) - given that Clinton admitted such a relationship , explain how knowing how many inches of cigar slick willy managed to push into Monica's oval orifice is relevant ?

 

"Remember we were told to believe women?" Who told us that? I was being sarcastic, get it? Of course, it is ridiculous because one woman recanted he accusation (first I hear of this) doesn't mean that all are liars.

 

He didn't say that all women were liars, he intimate not all do but by your leap in logic can we say you believe all men are liars?

 

Yes that you said the Lewinsky matter was a with hunt which it most certainly was not. The Lewinsky matter was dumped in his lap, he didn't go looking for it. He didn't branch out from Whitewater looking for something, anything. He gave Tripps statement to the FBI which took it over and confirmed the tapes and that Lewinsky had submitted the false affidavit. Starr then TOOK IT TO RENO. Then RENO told him to further investigate and prosecute in his office even though he didn't want it he was trying to wrap up his office. Again, prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury was dumped in his lap, what was he supposed to do with it ignore it?

 

And then tasked to prosecute the Clinton/Lewinsky perjury and obstruction of justice. It was not a matter of Starr going and looking for a crime, it was dumped in his lap.

Please cite where federal workplace rules say it is OK for federal bosses to trade special treatment, rewards, gifts and promotions to subordinate employees in exchange for sex and can have that sex in a federal office on the clock.

So you really don't know why Lewinsky was deposed.

 

Whether the sex between Clinton and Lewinsky was consensual was NOT why she was deposed, it was known it was consensual.

 

No you tell me what in my statements of fact are revisionist else retract the statement. And post #162 only shows Gift doesn't know of what he speaks.

 

How do you know this?

 

No one said all women are liars, what is being said is all women must be believed which would make all men liars.

 

Back tracking further will not help you.

You said - with respect my comment on the the Special council being a Witch Hunt - an investigation which prosecuted Clinton for Perjury with respect to Monica Lewinski :

I then responded

Rather that comprehend the fact Clinton's prosecution was related to Monica and not rape accusations - you blabber on about the rape accusations.

You seemed to be having trouble understanding that the other rape allegations had nothing to do with Clinton being prosecuted for perjury charge so I say this to you directly.

To which you respond with

So after blubbering on about Clinton raping a bunch of women .. in the context of a conversation about the special council investigating Clinton which eventually charged him with perjury over Monica - and you stating twice "are you saying prosecuting known rapist Bill Clinton was a witch hunt" - and then me simply informing you that Bill was not prosecuted for the rape claimants - you claim not to be claiming what you were claiming.

 

Read the post again.

 

That is what he said we were told and that is "fake".

 

The Lewinsky matter had everything to do with the Witch Hunt. Reno should have never allowed further investigation of this "fruit of the poisoned tree" ... that is what makes it a Witch Hunt - as it was outside of the scope of Whitewater.

And YES - you are supposed to ignore things that are out of scope during such an investigation.

 

What a joke of a response in conjunction with moving the goal posts. Frack off and back up the claim that you made rather than asking me to prove your claim for you and prove a negative at the same time.

 

I never that "consensual" had anything to do with Monica being deposed. The fact that it was consensual - Bill was not being accused of rape or sexual harassment - means that the prosecution had no business asking Bill how many inches of cigar he inserted into Monica's oval orifice.

 

Sure, go back to my original post you quoted and apply your critical thinking skills...........it will become self evident that you conflated details intentionally and mischaracterized the details of the Clinton impeachment.

 

Thats how it looks to me.

 

So true.

I have no doubt Trump has perhaps dozens lined up ready to go, already preparing for the inevitable smears.

Leftists wont see a liberal SCOTUS for decades, and they have themselves to blame.

 

She had better.

 

I will give you the Washington Post version.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/5intro.htm#L6

It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the President's actions warrant impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate; those judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative branch.(19) This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its jurisdiction.(20) In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that "may constitute grounds for an impeachment," a task that inevitably requires judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence.

From the beginning, this phase of the OIC's investigation has been criticized as an improper inquiry into the President's personal behavior; indeed, the President himself suggested that specific inquiries into his conduct were part of an effort to "criminalize my private life."(21) The regrettable fact that the investigation has often required witnesses to discuss sensitive personal matters has fueled this perception.

All Americans, including the President, are entitled to enjoy a private family life, free from public or governmental scrutiny. But the privacy concerns raised in this case are subject to limits, three of which we briefly set forth here.

First. The first limit was imposed when the President was sued in federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such litigation is often personal. At times, that evidence is highly embarrassing for both plaintiff and defendant. As Judge Wright noted at the President's January 1998 deposition, "I have never had a sexual harassment case where there was not some embarrassment."(22)Nevertheless, Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their claims. Courts have long recognized the difficulties of proving sexual harassment in the workplace, inasmuch as improper or unlawful behavior often takes place in private.(23) To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on the ground that the evidence covered only "personal" or "private" behavior would frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to achieve in enacting and interpreting the Nation's sexual harassment laws. That is particularly true when the conduct that is being concealed -- sexual relations in the workplace between a high official and a young subordinate employee -- itself conflicts with those goals.

Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright required disclosure of the precise information that is in part the subject of this Referral. A federal judge specifically ordered the President, on more than one occasion, to provide the requested information about relationships with other women, including Monica Lewinsky. The fact that Judge Wright later determined that the evidence would not be admissible at trial, and still later granted judgment in the President's favor, does not change the President's legal duty at the time he testified. Like every litigant, the President was entitled to object to the discovery questions, and to seek guidance from the court if he thought those questions were improper. But having failed to convince the court that his objections were well founded, the President was duty bound to testify truthfully and fully. Perjury and attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence can never be an acceptable response to a court order, regardless of the eventual course or outcome of the litigation.

The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully about perjury and other forms of obstruction of justice:

In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative.(24)


The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case is civil or criminal. Only a few years ago, the Supreme Court considered a false statement made in a civil administrative proceeding: "False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither reward nor condone such a 'flagrant affront' to the truth-seeking function of adversary proceedings. . . . Perjury should be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases."(25) Stated more simply, "[p]erjury is an obstruction of justice."(26)

Third. The third limit is unique to the President. "The Presidency is more than an executive responsibility. It is the inspiring symbol of all that is highest in American purpose and ideals."(27) When he took the Oath of Office in 1993 and again in 1997, President Clinton swore that he would "faithfully execute the Office of President."(2 As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."(29) The President gave his testimony in the Jones case under oath and in the presence of a federal judge, a member of a co-equal branch of government; he then testified before a federal grand jury, a body of citizens who had themselves taken an oath to seek the truth. In view of the enormous trust and responsibility attendant to his high Office, the President has a manifest duty to ensure that his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land.


In sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen -- whether in a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, a congressional hearing, a civil trial, or civil discovery -- are profoundly serious matters. When such acts are committed by the President of the United States, we believe those acts "may constitute grounds for an impeachment."



(30)

By late 1997, this Office was investigating whether a relationship existed between consulting payments to Mr. Hubbell and his lack of cooperation (specifically, his incomplete testimony) with the OIC's investigation.(31) In particular, the OIC was investigating whether Mr. Hubbell concealed information about certain core Arkansas matters, namely, the much-publicized Castle Grande real estate project and related legal work by the Rose Law Firm, including the First Lady.

Against this background, the OIC considered the January 1998 allegations that: (i) Ms. Lewinsky was prepared to lie in order to benefit the President, and (ii) Vernon Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones litigation, while simultaneously helping her apply for a private-sector job with, among others, Revlon, Inc.

Based in part on these similarities, the OIC undertook a preliminary investigation. On January 15, 1998, this Office informed the Justice Department of the results of our inquiry. The Attorney General immediately applied to the Special Division of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for an expansion of the OIC's jurisdiction. The Special Division granted this request and authorized the OIC to determine whether Monica Lewinsky or others had violated federal law in connection with the Jones v. Clinton case.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page


© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Back to the top

 

Her story wasn’t credible. Everyone was polite to her and treated her with kid gloves, but no one really believed her. She wrote the B.S. letter and hoped that would be enough to destroy Kavanaugh. She never thought she would have to testify. But the aggressive Dems got hold of the letter and forced her to testify.

 

So... she was angry, opposing Kavanaugh nomination and has chosen this tactic to try and deny Kavanaugh the seat on SCOTUS?

Holy ****...but where have I heard it all before?

Ah yes! From Democrat Leaders playbooks! Sickening.

 

Cite the federal management laws over underlings?

What you do not understand is this. I argued this daily for years with your fellow Democrats when this was happening.

They pulled out the same stops you do. And I won each time. None of this is news to me. i long ago learned all about this issue.

I believe you tasked me to perform your research.

What the hell?

Though Clinton was not charged, a woman by the name of Barbara Battalino was charged and found guilty.

 

I believe you.

 

I believe you.

Yippa.