Kenneth Starr. Oh the irony

[Brochacholomigo]

So am I the only one who thinks Kenneth Star would be a great name for a redneck version on Justin Bieber (as if the original wasn't bad enough)?

 

[Lovebug]

So Kenneth was the fishing lawyer that was hired to investigate the Clinton's supposed whitewater scandal...couldn't find anything so kept shifting the goalpost of his investigation claiming scandal here... scandal there. Nothing stuck until he got a stain on monica Lewinsky's dress.

Now he's president of Baylor university. He had bill Clinton impeached because he dug and dug and dug until he found a sex scandal. Now president Kenneth Starr loses his job for basically ignoring sex crimes happening under his reign.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/baylor-university-president-kenneth-starr-050204529.html?nhp=1​

Not sure how much he had to dig to find dirt on Bubba. I am guessing it wasn't too deep.
If he ignoring sex crimes, he too should be held accountable. One deed doesn't excuse another.

 

[Mason66]

He was impeached because republicans didn't like him.

It wasn't successful because he didn't actually commit perjury.

Spin spin away if you like.

That is factually not true.

 

[Absentglare]

Holy ****, Rob. Talk about rewriting history.

Can you provide some evidence to prove that he was appointed by a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit to investigate Whitewater and the allegations from more than one woman as a "payback for Nixon", please?

"Starr was initially appointed to investigate the suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton. The three-judge panel charged with administering the Independent Counsel Act later expanded the inquiry into numerous areas including an extramarital affair that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky. After several years of investigation, Starr filed the Starr Report, which alleged that Bill Clinton had lied about the existence of the affair during a sworn deposition. The allegation opened the door for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clinton's law license."

-wikipedia

 

[Absentglare]

Spin spin away if you like.

That is factually not true.

Spin what away ?

Dare you suggest that they didn't dig up Lewinsky/Jones for political reasons ?

Or are you unaware that the case for perjury was unsuccessful ? Here's a 33 page paper on it :

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

The summary is that the prosecution provided a narrow definition of "sexual relations" that did not include President Clinton's activity. Further, his consensual affair with Lewinsky would have had to have been material to the Paula Jones case, and i don't see how an extramarital affair is evidence of sexually predatory behavior.

 

[jonny5]

Puhleeze. Starr was a tool used for payback for Nixon. Starr had no business investigating Clinton's dick and bill had no business being a ****ing sleaze who cheated on his wife.

But even though bill is a cheating sleaze bucket, wtf does any of that have to do with what Starr was "supposedly" hired to do? That's right nothing. Hiw does an investigation go from whitewater to travel gate to Lewinsky?

What Starr was REALLY hired to do was to keep rooting around until he could find anything that the gop could hold over Clintons head so they could have their whitewater as well.

Im just correcting the facts. There is no point in debating the politics of it.

 

[tres borrachos]

"Starr was initially appointed to investigate the suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton. The three-judge panel charged with administering the Independent Counsel Act later expanded the inquiry into numerous areas including an extramarital affair that Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky. After several years of investigation, Starr filed the Starr Report, which alleged that Bill Clinton had lied about the existence of the affair during a sworn deposition. The allegation opened the door for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clinton's law license."

-wikipedia

I can read Wiki too. And I already know what you posted. In fact, I posted it already (without having to refer to Wiki). I asked for evidence that this was a payback for Nixon. I missed the name "Nixon" in your copy and paste job from Wiki. Please, read what I post next time if you want to quote me so you don't waste my time.

 

[Absentglare]

Im just correcting the facts. There is no point in debating the politics of it.

Your "guessing" that President Clinton was a clever liar is not a "fact."

 

[Absentglare]

I can read Wiki too. And I already know what you posted. In fact, I posted it already (without having to refer to Wiki). I asked for evidence that this was a payback for Nixon. I missed the name "Nixon" in your copy and paste job from Wiki. Please, read what I post next time if you want to quote me so you don't waste my time.

Oh- i understand. Your horrendously written question gave me the impression that you were completely unaware of how Starr had been brought in to attack the Clintons from every possible angle:

Holy ****, Rob. Talk about rewriting history.

Can you provide some evidence to prove that he was appointed by a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit to investigate Whitewater and the allegations from more than one woman as a "payback for Nixon", please?

You accused Rob of rewriting history. I explained how the history provides evidence to show that "he was appointed by a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit to investigate Whitewater and the allegations from more than one woman." You seem to have been asking for "evidence" of the motivation behind those historical facts. In this case, i am unclear how you think you can accuse Rob of "rewriting history" by reading between the lines of actual history. Do you have any evidence for your accusation ?

 

[tres borrachos]

Oh- i understand. Your horrendously written question gave me the impression that you were completely unaware of how Starr had been brought in to attack the Clintons from every possible angle:



You accused Rob of rewriting history. I explained how the history provides evidence to show that "he was appointed by a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit to investigate Whitewater and the allegations from more than one woman." You seem to have been asking for "evidence" of the motivation behind those historical facts. In this case, i am unclear how you think you can accuse Rob of "rewriting history" by reading between the lines of actual history. Do you have any evidence for your accusation ?

My "horrendously written question" was a quote of someone else's post, where I quoted his own words and asked him to specifically clarify that part of his own words. So instead of jumping in and making it obvious you don't understand what happens when someone quotes a post and asks the quoted poster to clarify his own words, maybe next time you should let that poster answer for himself.

I accused Rob of rewriting history because no history books show that Starr's investigation was a payback for Nixon. That's why I asked him to clarify it. The comment about Nixon. I posted in there who appointed him and what he was appointed to investigate. I him to show evidence that it was a payback for Nixon, as he said. I don't have to provide evidence that it wasn't a payback for Nixon. He has to provide evidence that it was, since it was his claim.

Now please go make a fool of yourself elsewhere or stop quoting me.

 

[poweRob]

Im just correcting the facts. There is no point in debating the politics of it.

No point in debating politics when in a political debate forum. Brilliant logic. Lol

 

[Absentglare]

My "horrendously written question" was a quote of someone else's post, where I quoted his own words and asked him to specifically clarify that part of his own words. So instead of jumping in and making it obvious you don't understand what happens when someone quotes a post and asks the quoted poster to clarify his own words, maybe next time you should let that poster answer for himself.

I accused Rob of rewriting history because no history books show that Starr's investigation was a payback for Nixon. That's why I asked him to clarify it. The comment about Nixon. I posted in there who appointed him and what he was appointed to investigate. I him to show evidence that it was a payback for Nixon, as he said. I don't have to provide evidence that it wasn't a payback for Nixon. He has to provide evidence that it was, since it was his claim.

Now please go make a fool of yourself elsewhere or stop quoting me.

"Payback for Nixon" was the only thing that i saw you quote.

And i don't think you're at liberty to claim that "no history books show that Starr's investigation was a payback for Nixon." In fact, since a republican has basically admitted as such, i'm pretty sure that you're overstating your case, perhaps you should not let partisanship breathe life into ignorance:

"Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon’s impeachment.
“I can’t say it wasn’t, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility,” said Hyde."

Hyde: Clinton Impeachment Retaliation for Nixon | ThinkProgress

Oh and here's Sneed, not a partisan, acknowledging that the sham was a political attack:

"Gormley, dean at Duquesne University law school, shared with the Loop the transcript from his 2003 interview with Fiorina’s father. He asked Sneed where he was when the House voted to impeach Clinton.

“I just thought well, here we go again, and just thought it was an exhibition because the liklihood of impeaching a president who hasn’t committed a murder seems to me so remote that it’s a show to gain political position more than anything else,” Sneed said, according to the transcript."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-investigations-into-90s-clinton-scandals/

 

[tres borrachos]

"Payback for Nixon" was the only thing that i saw you quote.

And that's why your idiotic post from Wiki was a waste of everyone's time.

Now stop nipping at my heels. Let Rob answer my question.

 

[Mr Person]

Except we know now that it was much worse. Sort of like Benghazi and the email server business. Maybe it starts as a political sham, but it finds out it was actually worse than they thought.

You might want to go back and review the history of the smears. They didn't find out anything was "actually worse". Every single stated reason for the Benghazi investigation was shot down, EXCEPT it turned out that the initial assessment by the CIA that there was a spontaneous protest (as there was in about 19 other cities) was wrong.

it was ugly political theatre, pure and simple.

 

[Absentglare]

And that's why your idiotic post from Wiki was a waste of everyone's time.

Now stop nipping at my heels. Let Rob answer my question.

I am not nipping at your heels nor was my response "idiotic"- it addressed your question. You expressed disbelief that Starr's investigation trailed from whitewater to Lewinsky.

 

[Mason66]

Spin what away ?

Dare you suggest that they didn't dig up Lewinsky/Jones for political reasons ?

Or are you unaware that the case for perjury was unsuccessful ? Here's a 33 page paper on it :

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

The summary is that the prosecution provided a narrow definition of "sexual relations" that did not include President Clinton's activity. Further, his consensual affair with Lewinsky would have had to have been material to the Paula Jones case, and i don't see how an extramarital affair is evidence of sexually predatory behavior.

You said he didn't lie.

He did and he admitted that he did.

Keep on spinning.

 

[tres borrachos]

I am not nipping at your heels nor was my response "idiotic"- it addressed your question. You expressed disbelief that Starr's investigation trailed from whitewater to Lewinsky.

What a stupid post, even from you.

Let me type this slowly so maybe you get it.

Rob posted this:

Puhleeze. Starr was a tool used for payback for Nixon. Starr had no business investigating Clinton's dick and bill had no business being a ****ing sleaze who cheated on his wife.

But even though bill is a cheating sleaze bucket, wtf does any of that have to do with what Starr was "supposedly" hired to do? That's right nothing. Hiw does an investigation go from whitewater to travel gate to Lewinsky?

What Starr was REALLY hired to do was to keep rooting around until he could find anything that the gop could hold over Clintons head so they could have their whitewater as well.

To which I posted this:

Holy ****, Rob. Talk about rewriting history.

Can you provide some evidence to prove that he was appointed by a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit to investigate Whitewater and the allegations from more than one woman as a "payback for Nixon", please?

I didn't express disbelief that the investigation trailed from whitewater to Lewinsky. I asked him to provide evidence that it was, in his words, "payback for Nixon". My post was clear to anyone who has functioning brain cells.

Now go bother someone else. You are humiliating yourself and you are only making it worse providing evidence over and over and over that you could not comprehend my post.

 

[Absentglare]

You said he didn't lie.

He did and he admitted that he did.

Keep on spinning.

No, i did NOT say that he didn't lie. Here is what i said :

He was impeached because republicans didn't like him.

It wasn't successful because he didn't actually commit perjury.

"Lying" is NOT synonymous to committing perjury. It is ironic for you to accuse me of spinning the truth here.

 

[Absentglare]

What a stupid post, even from you.

Let me type this slowly so maybe you get it.

Rob posted this:



To which I posted this:



I didn't express disbelief that the investigation trailed from whitewater to Lewinsky. I asked him to provide evidence that it was, in his words, "payback for Nixon". My post was clear to anyone who has functioning brain cells.

Now go bother someone else. You are humiliating yourself and you are only making it worse providing evidence over and over and over that you could not comprehend my post.

I don't appreciate your tone.

Your post was not clear, that was why i responded the way i did. If you are asserting that i do not have functioning brain cells, i can assure you that you are sorely mistaken. Perhaps you should seek an alternative explanation for your frustration here, for example, perhaps you are uncomfortable about being confronted with a reality that is inconvenient for your ideology.

 

[Mason66]

No, i did NOT say that he didn't lie. Here is what i said :



"Lying" is NOT synonymous to committing perjury. It is ironic for you to accuse me of spinning the truth here.

Ok so please explain to me what lying under oath is.

He admitted to lying and that was under oath, so even though they were not successful, he did commit perjury.

Looks like his wife is going down the same road.

She did what she did with the server and there is a debate as to weather it was illegal.

If it was anybody else they would have been charged long ago.

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't appreciate your tone.

Your post was not clear, that was why i responded the way i did. If you are asserting that i do not have functioning brain cells, i can assure you that you are sorely mistaken. Perhaps you should seek an alternative explanation for your frustration here, for example, perhaps you are uncomfortable about being confronted with a reality that is inconvenient for your ideology.

I don't care what you appreciate. You jumped into this. I didn't ask you anything. You are not Rob.

Just admit you were wrong and move on. My "tone" is the result of my frustration with you jumping in with your moronic posts that had nothing to do with what I posted to someone else. Next time pay attention and you won't look so ridiculous.

But I give you props for attempting to deflect from your humiliation by bringing up "ideology". My "ideology" hasn't got anything to do with this. But sadly, you failed.

This is my last post to you in here. You've already wasted enough of my valuable time on this Friday afternoon.

 

[Absentglare]

Ok so please explain to me what lying under oath is.

He admitted to lying and that was under oath, so even though they were not successful, he did commit perjury.

Looks like his wife is going down the same road.

She did what she did with the server and there is a debate as to weather it was illegal.

If it was anybody else they would have been charged long ago.

Lying under oath is not sufficient to prove perjury- in order for it to be perjury, the lie, itself, must be material to the line of inquiry.

 

[Absentglare]

I don't care what you appreciate. You jumped into this. I didn't ask you anything. You are not Rob.

Just admit you were wrong and move on. My "tone" is the result of my frustration with you jumping in with your moronic posts that had nothing to do with what I posted to someone else. Next time pay attention and you won't look so ridiculous.

But I give you props for attempting to deflect from your humiliation by bringing up "ideology". My "ideology" hasn't got anything to do with this. But sadly, you failed.

This is my last post to you in here. You've already wasted enough of my valuable time on this Friday afternoon.

I don't understand why you would post your question in this thread if you intended for it to remain private between you and Rob.

What was i wrong about ? You never addressed post #37. A republican admitted that they "can't" say that Starr's investigation wasn't payback for Nixon- not "won't" but "can't." That's a strong implication for the legitimacy of the assertion. Not only did the republican not deny the claim, they responded that they can't deny the claim.

 

[truthatallcost]

as he should. it is his job as student president to protect the students on campus and to investigate
reported sexual misconduct. if he isn't doing his job or is covering up what is going on then he needs to be
fired.

To be fair, college aged girls are told that they can report any sexual contact as a sex crime.

Ex. Two college kids at a party decide to have consensual sex, the girl wakes up the next day and regrets it, she can have the boy expelled and even arrested.

 

[ludin]

To be fair, college aged girls are told that they can report any sexual contact as a sex crime.

Ex. Two college kids at a party decide to have consensual sex, the girl wakes up the next day and regrets it, she can have the boy expelled and even arrested.

which is why each case should be looked into.
that wasn't happening here and I am 100% yes means yes or whatever you want to call it.

a lot of these kids that this happens too though are suing the colleges and winning due to lack of
due process.

what happened here though is that the complaints were not investigated properly or were
summarily dismissed simply because it was the football team.