Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

Associated Press ^ | 3-21-02 | JIM ABRAMS

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[Uncle Bill]

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

[BeAChooser]

I did not, that is why I suggested you take your meds!

Ok, then I guess you are either claiming Starr did not allow the FBI files to remain in the Whitehouse and that Ray was lying on TV when he said that, or you must think there is some perfectly innocent reason why he would allow the files, that he himself said were illegal for the Whitehouse to have, to remain there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you believe the latter and simply ask you what that innocent reason is? Also, while you are at it, provide an explanation of why Starr then didn't correct the Whitehouse and FBI when they told the press and public that the FBI files had been returned. If their action to the contrary was as innocent as you must believe then why didn't they just tell the truth and provide that innocent reason to the press? Let's stick to the facts and stay away from the usual democRAT debating technique of suggesting that those who don't want to "move-on" need meds.

[BeAChooser]

Please give some to BAC, he seems to need them worse than you do!

If you are going to say something nasty about me then do me the courtesy of cc'ing the post to me. Otherwise I might think you as RUDE as most "move-on" stealth democRATS seem to be. Argue the facts, rather than using the usual democRAT debating technique of SMEARING your opponent.

[BeAChooser]

FAILURE TO INDICT IS NOT PROOF OF THIS

The response we've come to expect from democRATS when faced with overwhelming evidence of criminal activity. They stick their head in the ground and fall back on this lame excuse ... which begs the question whether Starr was infact working for Clinton. You RUN from the facts rather than address them.

And, let me add one more name to the list. On CSPAN we all watched Sid Blumenthal get caught redhanded LYING UNDER OATH to protect himself and Clinton. He did it during an impeachment trial about lying under oath. Did Starr do anything about this? NO, of course not.

On matters such as this, however, I trust the judgement of those involved in putting Mr. Starr in charge more than I do yours.

But do you trust the fact that Starr was the #2 name on the list of suggested Independent Counsels PROVIDED BY CLINTON? Are you saying you trusted Starr because Clinton trusted him? I think that indeed you are.

[BeAChooser]

The media are irrelevant on this, it is a court case.

Tell that to the rest of your "move-on" friends, because the #1 EXCUSE they use for Ashcroft not doing a PROPER investigation of the crimes the Clintons, Clinton administration staffers and DNC hacks committed the last 9 years is that the court is irrelevant, it will be "tried" in the media.

And I've called you a "move-on"er since you apparently think that's what we should do with regards to all the crimes ... Filegate being one of them. Feel free to correct me by pointing to some instance where you've asked Ashcroft to investigate. Perhaps a URL or a quote by you?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The response we've come to expect from democRATS when faced with overwhelming evidence of criminal activity.

As I've suggested to others who are sure Ken Starr is a crook, why don't you make a citizen's arrest. By your logic, if you don't you are part of the conspiracy yourself, right!

[BeAChooser]

To suggest that he is a criminal conspirator or incompetent because of this is not reasonable.

If you want anyone to believe this then it is incumbent on you to explain the presence of the FBI files in the Whitehouse YEARS after Starr's investigation. It is also incumbent on you to explain why what we already know about the facts in the various cases that DoughtyOne listed were not enough reason to indict various individuals. The House managers seemed to believe they were and a lot of us agree. For example, I'd be happy to debate the facts in Filegate and show that there was indeed sufficient evidence to proceed with indictments and a REAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Starr didn't even bother to interview many of the key people in the case. In fact, I don't think he even bothered to respond to questions that Representative Barr asked him about his handling of it. He just ignored them ... like democRATS ALWAYS do when faced with facts they can't spin.

[BeAChooser]

If you think Starr is a crook, why don't you arrest him?

This is another LAME statement that "move-on" stealth democRATS ALWAY end up using when their lack of concern about the facts and the law starts to become blatently apparent. First they suggest that Clinton administration investigators did a proper job so we should accept their conclusion ... and when that doesn't work suggest that it is not now Ashcroft's job or the mainstream media's job to investigate but the person they are debating!

[BeAChooser]

As I've suggested to others who are sure Ken Starr is a crook, why don't you make a citizen's arrest.

See? Just like I said above.

By your logic, if you don't you are part of the conspiracy yourself, right!

And I forgot ... this is the final step ... to accuse the person they are debating of being the problem ... or even a democRAT!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I am sorry, I have all the tinfoil I need, perhaps some others are planning a cookout, and could use a little, but I am full up!

[BeAChooser]

Well thanks for making it easy so prove that you aren't really interested in Starr's ability to challenge CFR. You couldn't be given that you've obviously moved-on with regards to all the other cases of democRAT criminality the past 9 years. Why ... I bet you aren't even interested in the Riady non-refund ... and investigating and prosecuting that case would REALLY be "campaign finance reform".

So let's summarize ... you promote views about Clinton and DNC crimes and the subsequent investigations into those crimes (by Clinton appointed or recommended individuals) that democRATS would probably mostly agree with ... you debate in the same manner that democRATS usually debate ... and you run from discussing any facts that suggest democRATS did commit crimes and that some of the supposed investigators were infact working for them. Hummmmmmm. Tinfoil or not, you sure sound like a democRAT.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Let me see now, you believe in a criminal conspiracy including virtually every conservative activist in the US, and I am the one who sounds like a Demoncrat, and this after 40 years as a conservative activist myself. No, no, if I have been working for conservatism since the Goldwater for Vice President campaign that must PROVE I'm a Democrat, right! LOL!

I will not be communicating with you anymore. 'Resistance Is Futile' as far as this is concerned, I'm afraid.

[BeAChooser]

No, no, if I have been working for conservatism since the Goldwater for Vice President campaign

ANYONE, even I, could claim this on the internet. Profiles are meaningless since most of them are probably phony anyway. It is STATED VIEWS and DEBATING TECHNIQUES and how one deals with FACTS that tell the real story. That is why the internet is not a good forum, on forums like this that aren't controlled by democRATS, for democRATS or those who think/act like democRATS. It is too easy to reveal them for what they really are using simple facts that anyone can verify. It is too easy to show they run from facts. That is, afterall, the chief characteristic of democRATS.

[Uncle Bill]

Kenneth Starr and Janet Reno

• FBI man: Starr didn't give agents leeway to nail more Arkansans.
  
• Justice Dept. To Probe Starr
  
• D'Amato: Starr Botched Whitewater, Blocked Bombshell Testimony
  
• Starr's China Connection
  
• Why isn't Ken Starr indicting Larry Flynt for jury tampering?
  
• Ken Starr passed up chance to trap Clinton in devastating lie
  
• Starr team pressed him to lie in '95, witness says
  
• Starr Withholding Impeachable Evidence
  
• Kenneth Starr's false dichotomy
  
• The Trouble with Starr report
  
• Is Starr holding out? Judiciary Committee member warns him to deliver it all
  
• Testimony: Indictment of first lady drafted in '96 - Starr Moves On
  
• "I was misled, Ken Starr hung me out to dry."
  
• A dirty trick overlooked by Starr

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

In my capacity I am in a position to counsel that he not be placed in a position of trust again.

That is certainly your right, but I am wondering, are there any of the conservative leadership in Washington on the CFR fight that take your position on this point? Most of them are in a better position to judge this situation than we are, and as far as I know, they are all in support of Judge Starr handling this case.

Surely you do not think that all of the conservative leadership in Washington is incompetent or corrupt on CFR? If they are, then we have no hope of saving our Free Republic at all. Red Dawn was a fantasy, our country can't be saved by a few folks with guns going into the hills to shoot at our enemies.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

In my capacity I am in a position to counsel that he not be placed in a position of trust again.

That is certainly your right, but I am wondering, are there any of the conservative leadership in Washington on the CFR fight that take your position on this point?
Most of them are in a better position to judge this situation than we are, and as far as I know, they are all in support of Judge Starr handling this case.

Surely you do not think that all of the conservative leadership in Washington is incompetent or corrupt on CFR? If they are, then we have no hope of saving our Free Republic at all. Red Dawn was a fantasy, our country can't be saved by a few folks with guns going into the hills to shoot at our enemies.

335 posted on 3/23/02 5:20 AM Pacific by Lucius Cornelius Sulla

In the interest of being as frank as possible about this, I didn't vote for George Bush in 2000.  Out of a sense of responsible citizenship, I did help produce four or five rallys in Los Angeles to support him after the election.  I did this because it became evident that Gore would try to steal the election when he challenged the vote in Florida and stormed the state with over 100 attornies to pull it off.  I didn't think that was right and defended Bush's candidacy for that reason.

This was the first Presidential election since 1972 that I hadn't voted for the Republican candidate.  I didn't take that action lightly.  For some time I had been noticing that the Republican leadership had been skirting the issues important to me.  I knew that we had upwards of one million illegal immigrants entering this nation each year.  The Republican party couldn't have cared less.  I started watching some of the legislation coming out of Washington.  Then I had to admit to myself that something was terribly wrong with Republican leadership if the House it controlled was passing all this legislation.

Dennis Hastert is a ghost.  You hardly ever see the guy.  It would be impossible to characterize him as a leader.  He doesn't champion conservative values.  His party passes some of the worst legislation I've ever seen.  Trent Lott is of the same mold.  You see his mugg on the television more, but he's spineless.  He stands for nothing.  He'll compromise to the point of aquiessing his position.

Neither of these men stand firm on issues important to me, then make appearances where they champion those issues and explain to the American public why those issues are important.  It's no wonder our values go wanting.  It's no wonder this nation marches continually left.

That may not be your take.  You may not share my views on this.  That's okay.  I would ask you to think about how CFR was passed in a Republican controlled House.  How did it pass with a 60/40 majority in the Senate?

Bush has been working behind the scenes to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  He hasn't gotten it yet, but he's going to get it.  How will he get it with a Republican controlled House, if not for flawed leadership?  For that matter, isn't Bush's push for this flawed?  To me it is.

It's out of this environment that Republican leadership operates in Washington, D.C.  Frankly I have grave concerns over Republican leadership.  I think they are soft on a number of issues.  They have not championed the Second Amendment like I think they should have.  They've remained silent as church mouses on the topic.  There are other important issues that have recieved the same treatment.  Republican leadership is at a crossroads as far as I am concerned.  They have their President in the White House, so they feel that there's nothing more that need be done.  I think that's dilusional.

There's one more reason why I don't think Starrr should be heading up this litigation.  Until two years ago Starr was heading up an investigation seeking to determine criminality on the part of Bill Clinton.  I don't think that was a partisian issue.  The public most likely does.  By placing Starr in the fore position on this "conserative" issue, Republican leadership is basicly admitting that Starr is a highly partisian individual.  That is the absolute wrong message to send.

Starr should have gone back to being a judge for a few years.  He could have then been appointed to other positions quietly without having to make the splash he'll now be making.

As for the Red Dawn scenario, it's one none of us relish.  I don't see it as a viable scenario.  By that stage of the game all pretense of Possi Comitatus would have been obliterated.  Our military would hunt us down just like the Taliban.  Therefore armed opposition would be futile.

I believe that we are headed into a very dark period for this nation.  National ID cards are the talk of the town.  Public cameras are recording faces as fast as they can.  Checkpoints at airports are logging our every move.  It's only a matter of time before cameras are recording our other movements, if they are not already.

These things are being set up with the tacit approval of Republican leadership.  Do I think they would place a straw man in a position to block the removal of CFR?  I think I would be a fool to completely dismiss the posibility.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Do not have the time to fully answer your thoughtful post. A few comments: I did not vote GOP in 1992, since I felt that GHWB had broken a contract, and I needed to enforce my end, who was to know quite how bad X-42 would be?

Didn't vote for GWB in the primaries, considered a protest vote, and voted for GW when it was obvious that it would be close in Florida and the Dems were worse than ever. Of course I opposed the coup attempt after the election. I didn't expect much from Bush, but he has been better than I expected.

In the case of Congress, I worked there, and didn't expect much from them either. Speakers can either be visionaries, like Gingrich, or bureaucrats, like Hastert. Hastert is there because they were afraid of another visionary. His job is not to be seen out front, but to keep the trains running on time, and depict an average of his party, which he does. Trent Lott is a big time wussie, and has done damage to the party and country, both in the Impeachment debacle and his calamitous sell-out in the Senate reorganization last year. I think he has overstayed his leave as Majority Leader and will not be reelected.

As far as my long term outlook is concerned, my homepage pretty well sums it up. Benjamin Franklin, it is said, when asked what kind of government the secret convention of 1787 was creating said: 'A republic, if you can keep it.' We have kept it for over 200 years, a record for an extensive republic of free people. I think that we will not be extending that record much futher, without an undeserved divine intervention.

[DoughtyOne]

Can't argue with that. Thanks for the comments. Take care.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Take care

Same to you, no use fighting each other while the Titanic goes down, right?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

no use fighting each other while the Titanic goes down

No need to be so dispirited general. There's still work to be done.

Our Maltusian manipulators have told us they plan lifeboats for only about 1/2 billion people. God will surely mete out justice upon these Godless. Their very children will deliver it. We can arrange for them to know it. It's an important task -- one that might even upset an apple cart or two.

Maybe a review of popular culture will tell you that you can still reach more than you know. I vaguely recall (showing my age here) two Star Trek TOS episodes that involved facing up to mass killing of a large population.

One solved overpopulation by deliberate, apparently national willingness to reintroduce disease. The decision to do that wasn't coercive. It was simply depicted as a hopeless situation that could be dealt with in only one way. It was definitely devoid of any faith in providential intervention. Aside from depicting what could happen in a faithless society (US?), the plot was flawed because the problem should have been solvable by outward expansion. For this was what should have been a warp capable species given their other special abilities.

The other dealt with revenge upon the murderer of a large mass of his own people when he "felt" there was no other course to take. His daughter became the instrument to deliver him his justice.

Combining those two episodes I think lends a glimpse of what to expect and what may still be done.

Av