Subj: Fwd: have some fun
Date: 98-11-15 22:37:28 EST
From: IF937
To: CWetzel01
BCC: Dohouse
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: have some fun
Date: 98-11-15 22:30:40 EST
From: IF937
To: ACBnyc
Hi,
Before I get into politics I think we need to say a little prayer for our computers Hello Lord . I seem to be losing everything I want to send you all.
Well, on those dreary days it is always nice to find a few Quotes that brighten our day.
Now onto politics. At the end, I'll have something special for ya.
> DEAR IF,
> Would you please pass this on. If enough people contact me I will
> arrange a demonstration in front of the hotel where this is taking place
> with press coverage.
>
> I note that some of your people are in New Jersey. And one of your
> favorite people Ashcroft is going to be there with Pat Robertson.
>
> You might also have your list tell the FCC we already pay taxes on
> internet usage through our phone bills.
>
> >
> > A message from Lee. If you're interested, please contact Lee at this
> > address: leegreen@lycosmail.com
> >
> > CAROL, can you ask if any of your people are in the New York, New
> > jersey
> > Connecticut area on Friday Nove.20th. We would like to have a small
> > demonstration outside the hotel in Secaucus New jersey where
> > Robertson is
> > having a "gala: to introduce Forbes, and Ashcroft, both running for
> > President.and invite the press also. Can you find out if any of your
> > people are in area and can attend?
> >
> > "Dr. Pat Robertson, Founder & Chairman of Christian Coalition, hosted
> > by
> > the New Jersey Christian Coaliton Secaucus, NJ Friday November
> > 20,1998 at
> > 7 PM." Present God & Country Gala, A Salute To Pat Robertson<<<
> >
> > >>Guest Speakers: Steve Forbes, Senator John Ashcroft,
> > (Former)Congressman
> > Mike Pappas, State Assemblywoman Marion Crecco and Jersey City Mayor
> > Bret
> > Shundler<<<<<
> >
> > Mike Pappas is the (former) congressman, just lost seat after singing
> > on
> > the house floor "Twinkle Twinkl Great Starr" Maybe someone poetic
> > could
> > make up a song we could sing, Twinke Twinkle Pappas Lostus.. LOL
> >
> >
> Lee Green,
> member
According to Darrell, it is a done deal that our Internet will not be taxed. However, let's be sure. Lee has suggested to write to these addresses:
> > Chairman - wkennard@fcc.gov
> > Commissioner - sness@fcc.gov
> > Commissioner - hfurchtg@fcc.gov
> > Commissioner - mpowell@fcc.gov
> > Commissioner - gtristan@fcc.gov
> >
> > Send an email today telling them you don't want to be taxed to use the
> > Internet in any form. Also, email your Congressman too.
Now back to the impeachment hearings and some suggestions from Eva.
Below follows a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee with strong arguments for rapidly concluding the impeachment inquiry and at the least, conducting it fairly. Anyone who agrees with my letter may feel more than welcome to copy it, add their name and address and send it to any Congressman they choose, particularly from their own district. It is important to note that all mail to Congress will have more impact when it is sent to individual members postmarked or per fax and includes signature(s) and a full address(es) reflecting voter constituency. Many thanks for your support in this.
Additionally, here are some Judiciary Committee e-mail addresses I collected from ABC/AOL Judiciary Committee Info:
Conyers: john.conyers@mail.house.gov; Wexler: robert.wexler@mail.house.gov; Ms. Lofgren: zoe@lofgren.house.gov; Nadler: jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov; Ms. Lee: tx18@lee.house.gov; Sensenbrenner: sensen09@mail.house.gov; McCollum: bill.mccollum@mail.house.gov; Coble: howard.coble@mail.house.gov; Canady: rep.charles.canady@mail.house.gov; Goodlatte: talk2bob@mail.house.gov; Barr: barr.ga@mail.house.gov; Jenkins: rep.jenkins@mail.house.gov; Hutchinson: asa.hutchinson@mail.house.gov; Rogan: jer@mail.house.gov; Berman: howard.berman@mail.house.gov; Boucher: ninthnet@mail.house.gov; Dillard: larry.dillard@mail.house.gov; Meehan: martin.meehan@mail.house.gov; Delahunt: william.delahunt@mail.house.gov; Rothman: steven.rothman@mail.house.gov; Barrett: telltom@mail.house.gov
Go for it! ;-) Eva
**********************
Dear Honorable Congressman
I'm writing to you out of grave concern that numerous members of the Judiciary Committee are proclaiming the need for a just, fair and legal inquiry into alleged impeachable offenses by the President without clearly showing interest or willingness to sincerely be open to exculpatory evidence in the President's favor. If indeed this open sincerity to be fair is not exhibited, how can the inquiry being undertaken possibly lead to just decisions? When the only witnesses the majority of committee members appear willing to hear as evidence of impeachable offenses are Judge Kenneth Starr or his witnesses alone, at what point will opposing views of the law ever be presented?
On Nov. 12th, Judge Leslie Light is reported to have said to the prosecutor in the McDougal/Mehta case "The penal code is not designed to take a given situation and spin it into as many felonies as possible." The judge was reinforcing this necessary premise of law upon dismissing charges against the plaintiff which only speculated wrongdoing with no factual evidence to back them up. It can be reasonably argued that the Constitution is not designed to take a given situation of Presidential misconduct and spin it into as many impeachable offenses as possible. If criminal allegations are to be proven, they must be based on all facts of the case and not presented only in extracting speculated wrongdoing out of context of the laws under the penal code.
At this time it appears that the prevailing charges of impeachable offenses being levied against the President are perjury, obstruction of justice and subordination of perjury based initially on William Clinton's Jan. 17th deposition in the Jones case, as well as Monica Lewinsky's testimony. Subsequent charges of the like within the Starr investigation warrant no serious relevance if the Starr investigation was fraudulent in its legal premise. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity to first establish all true facts and evidence leading to the Starr investigation.
According to the Summary Judgement by Judge Susan Webber Wright in dismissing the Paula Jones case against the private citizen, William Clinton, the Jones legal team deliberately presented a false proffer in order to justify questioning Clinton and Lewinsky on their relationship to one another. They had hoped to establish the pattern that Clinton gave job favors for sex and denied job favors for not giving sex, yet there was never any factual evidence to establish this pattern. The testimonies then given by Clinton and Lewinsky were deemed immaterial and in fact, it was proven the questions shouldn't have been asked in the first place. In addition, if William Clinton as governor of Arkansas never did anything whatsoever to tamper with the job opportunities of Paula Jones, how could he have possibly have intended to obstruct justice to her case by not disclosing all immaterial truth of his relationship to Monica Lewinsky? Of course, no legal connection was ever possible to establish, before or afterwards, between a relationship of sexual consent and an alleged encounter of sexual assault for which there was also no factual evidence.
If there is any expert witness on the laws and facts of this case, how can the most informed authority of all not be Judge Susan Webber Wright? Why is she not being questioned? Why wasn't she questioned by Judge Kenneth Starr? Why has she never cited President Clinton with contempt as she reported she was considering? Why is her opinion and documentation of it being brushed aside by so many members of the Judiciary Committee?
I submit that all prosecutors and upholders of the law have a duty in their efforts to prove guilt of offenders to include and fully examine any and all evidence of an exculpatory nature. Not doing so is a total waste of taxpayers dollars in undue investigation when the truth by the defense finally comes out. Though grave moral issues and private misconduct of public officials are indeed worthy of public awareness and discussion, it is not the job of the government to investigate nor question these private matters unless there is substantial factual evidence of clear criminal wrongdoing. To cross this line is to violate the Bill of Rights guarantee that the government cannot tread on the right to privacy. When respect for this amendment is lost and historical precedent is established to ignore it when Judges simply speculate, postulate or possibly even fabricate legal wrongdoing, a go-ahead signal to all of society and courts is given to pry into private affairs regardless of potential harm to innocent parties. This is an extremely serious matter to take into account during the impeachment inquiry because if Congress doesn't care about the Bill of Rights or the protection of the innocent, why should anyone else?
While I seriously suspect that Judge Kenneth Starr both ignored exculpatory evidence of President Clinton and unnecessarily invaded intimate private matters of numerous witnesses in the Lewinsky investigation thereby violating the Bill of Rights, I recognize that such an investigation of the IOC must be conducted separately. However, I raise my argumentation about his methods because they cast doubt on whether or not in due fairness to the President, Judge Starr should be the only main witness on impeachable offenses. Not only is all of America watching this process, the entire world is watching as well and indeed nearly all European countries have stricter observance of privacy laws than the new disrespectful interpretations of them by the United States government. World leaders and the American people clearly exhibit more respect and support for President Clinton and trust in his credibility than the majority ruling in Congress. Will they trust the American government if the majority chooses to impeach the President in a partisan political manner on anything less than the highest possible legal standards of fairness and justice outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Eva Adams, Deeply Concerned American Citizen
Vivian writes poetry.
Hi George,
I often sit down and write light poetry about some issue or something that inspires me to voice an opinion. This was written shortly after Clinton became President, and I send it to you today because now, more than ever.......it is appropriate. As I reread it today, I see HOW APPROPRIATE MY WORDS ARE TODAY; perhaps more so now than in 1993...................
When he first came into office our country was "in a mess" as you can probably remember. (That's what I refer to in the poem.....not to today's
economy.)
I am not sure what had happened to inspire me to write it, but it was something that irritated me about what the Republican Party had done at that time. I do not care if you pass it on.............See how TRUE it is today!!!!
Dear Mr. President
Dear Mr. President,
I really think you're brave.
I'm sick of those Republicans.
I wish they would behave.
It seems the only thing they want
is to fight your every turn.
The way they quack and garble on,
it really makes me burn.
I wonder if they really want
to help to win this fight.
The country's future looks so dim.
They could help to make it right.
Instead, they prattle, rattle, roar,
and try to make a mess.
They'll never change. They're still the same.
They never learn, I guess.
If they really love America,
they'll put politics aside,
and get down to our business
BUT,
Instead, they want your hide.
--Vivian Drean
John is looking answers to these questions.
To Whom it May Concern: Members of Congress, News Media, Interested Citizens:
This is something to think about. What part of "nonpartisan" is not understood by some of our political representatives in Washington, DC? And why won't they listen when we tell them that "this investigation carried on by
Kenneth Starr has been flawed from the beginning?
What must the American people do to get their attention? If an election that just showed them the fact that Americans are tired of this charade didn't do it , then what must the people do to get their attention?
How much clearer can we say that we are tired of this investigation that has been run by Kenneth Starr and certain members of the Christian Coalition and others. Did you not understand that the citizens of this country want NO PART of this?
It was clear to me that the vote on November 3rd was loud and clear. How can Representative Hyde come forward with a list of 81 interrogatories that were obviously drafted by one party.......excluding the Democratic members of your own committee............Is this honorable?? Is this Democracy?? Ha!!!
It is misconduct. It is reprehensible, and shows a certain lack of character that Americans can well understand. What does it take to wake up the Hooligans on this committee????
We would still like to know about the Relationship between Kenneth Starr, Scaife, Olson, Tripp, Goldberg, Lewinsky etc.
Will someone address this information that is on the Internet regarding the Secret Operation vs. Clinton Is Run by Olson-Starr Salon....from Executive Intelligence Review....by Edward Spannaus......
In the article, the following is said, " The 'Get Clinton' salon meets regularly at the home of former Justice Department official Olson, a longtime close friend and associate of Kenneth Starr, and of Olson's wife Barbara, chief counsel for Rep. Dan Burton's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Burton's committee has been noisily conducting investigations of the 'Chinagate 'allegations around Democratic Party campaign fundraising, and of other alleged Clinton administration transgressions.
The gatherings include: Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Federal appeals court judge Laurence Silberman, former judge Robert Bork, Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas, wall street journal editor Robert Bartley, American Spectator editor Emmett Tyrrell, and many others.
A glimpse into the Olson salon can be found in the July 1997 esquire magazine, in an article by David Brock, titled " Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man." Brock was the author of the Scaife-financed "Troopergate article in the January 1994 American Spectator --on whose board Ted Olson sits. Brock described how he had been a guest at the wedding of Ted and Barbara Olson in the summer of 1996, where "the entire anti-Clinton establishment" was on hand, including Starr, former Bush White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and the Wall Street Journal's Bartley. Brock says that Barbara Olson then dis-invited him from another party at her home a few weeks later--after word had leaked out that Brock's new book, The seduction of Hillary Clinton, was too sympathetic to the First Lady..."
"Olson --to put it bluntly--runs Kenneth Starr. He is the one with the "overview," and is said to be the direct link between Starr and the Justice Department permanent bureaucracy around Jack Keeney and Mark Richard. Olson played the central role in putting together Starr's staff, and is responsible for the collection of career Justice Department prosecutors who haved been recruited to Starr's operation. Since Starr himself is not a prosecutor, and has never tried a criminal case in his life, he is totally dependent on the thugs whom Olson is responsible for bringing on board."...
"Olson is also the link between Starr and Paula Jones's attorneys. Olson and Robert Bork played judges in a "moot court" practice session with Jones's lawyers before they argued the Jones v. Clinton case...The practice session was held at the Army-Navy Club in Washington."
"There is also a tie-in to Linda Tripp ...met with Paul Jones's lawyers on the evening of Jan. 16, right before they took President Clinton's deposition. Tripp briefed Jones's lawyers on her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, which were electronically monitored by the FBI under the direction of Starr's office. Tripp's lawyer James Moody, who says that he was hired to put Tripp in contact with Starr, is in the orbit of the rigfht--wing "public interest law firms" tied to Olson and Starr, and which are funded by Scaife. Moody has done legal work for both the Landmark Legal Foundation and for the Washington Legal Foundation--previously known as the Capital Legal Foundation."
Olson and Starr are both part of a tight network of lawyers who work in "conservative" legal foundatons and other organizations. They both sit on the Legal Advisory Council of two such groups; the National Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Washington Legal Foundation--both of which are bankrolled by Scaife."
Will someone be kind enough to take an interest in this information and look into it. If this investigation has been flawed from the beginning,which most Americans believe it has been, then how do you continue on with an impeachment case against the President?
I would like some answers to these questions.
Thank You,
Sincerely,
J. Drean (papadeeda@aol.com)
An unknown source provided this information:
Hemingway called Hoover's FBI 'America's Gestapo' and he proved to be absolutely right. We do not like evoking words like Nazi, but what is the alternative? Starr's defenders claim that if Starr is such a tyrant, then why doesn't Justice deal with him. If Justice is objective and competent, it will but in the meantime, the reality is that there is
a hisory of tyrants who evade prosecution.
It is the judgment of History that is most reliable, and even
if The Nazi survives and triumphs as long as J. Edgar Hoover did,
HIS LEGACY is eternal. And the people will never let you forget that.
http://www,angelfire.com/va/nsnews/news.html
John provided some more facts with recommended reading:
Perhaps you may be interested in this letter I received over the Internet.
There are many Americans who feel the same way, and we are wondering why the news media is not listening to the voices of the people.
There are 66% of American people who want this impeachment stopped. We do not want anymore investigations; no more money spent; no more of Ken Starr's leaks to certain media; and we want this Committee to be held accountable for their lack of fairness.
Presidents Reagan and Bush got away with Treason and high crimes while they were in office. President Clinton's problem does not compare to the illegal acts of the former Republican Administration. AND REAGAN AND BUSH GOT AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT ANY PENALTY...........That inflames me.
Read these three books on the subject.
The Iran-Contra Scandal: The Declassified History edited by Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne
\the Itran-Contra Puzzle........Congressional Quarterly Inc.
FIREWALL......by Lawrence Walsh........In his book he says, ... "This is also the story of a serious constitutional confrontation that pitted the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government against one another. The conflict, which desecrated the rule of law, reached into the White House itself, as two presidents deeply involved in illegal clandestine activities attempted to thwart investigations by Congress and the courts."
These two Presidents liked the the American people, To Congress, To the Media, and got away with it. I cannot believe how the media would not go forward and dig out the information on their Administrations and give the facts to the American people. Too many people do not know this, and under the assumption that these were honorable men with honesty and integrity. That is a false belief, and should be made public.
This President (Clinton) has been whipped enough by the uncaring press. The methodical leaks of Kenneth Starr sent the media out as messengers, judge, and jury to inflame the people, and now he has been found guilty before he has had his turn to speak.
Is this the NEW American way? I plead with you to let others know the truth. Clinton did not commit impeachable acts, not like the former presidents.
It is not right that they should remain sacroscant in the minds of American people, and Clinton should be demonized.
Thank You,
J. Drean (papadeeda@aol.com)
Okay, now for some fun. Shoot, there is not enough room for us to go email skiing. Maybe in my next mailing.
My Friends....
Have a Nice Day
George