Election day results discussion thread

[irishgrl]

Not with Cheney - right?
There's still VA, but if we win there, or win the recount there, Cheney is useless
strike that, even MORE useless.

[Nixxxed]

Not with Cheney - right?
Technically, no. If VA holds, it will be 49-49. BUT the two independents (one of whom is Lieberman, of course) have already announced/are expected to caucus with the Democrats, giving them 51-49. Which makes Cheney irrelevant in all cases except those when Lieberman gets cranky. :laugh:

(Is that what you meant, or were you making a joke and trying to get Mary riled up again, now that she's had a nap? :shrug: ;) )

[strandinthewind]

I would rile mary up on purpose :angel:

No, that is what I meant. So, VA must fall into the D slot.

[irishgrl]

Technically, no. If VA holds, it will be 49-49. BUT the two independents (one of whom is Lieberman, of course) have already announced/are expected to caucus with the Democrats, giving them 51-49. Which makes Cheney irrelevant in all cases except those when Lieberman gets cranky. :laugh:

(Is that what you meant, or were you making a joke and trying to get Mary riled up again, now that she's had a nap? :shrug: ;) )
no, Dems won Montana, the count stands at 50/49. if we win VA, it will be 51/49 and Cheney wont be needed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Jon Tester defeated Republican Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record) in Montana, capturing an important seat in the party's bid to gain control of the Senate.

CBSNews.com and the Associated Press projected state Sen. Tester had unseated incumbent Burns, who was tainted by links to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and whose campaign was marred by several gaffes. The only Senate seat still undecided was in Virginia.

Nixxxed, catch UP!!!!!!

[estranged4life]

Cheney is useless strike that, even MORE useless.

he could always try out for the live action version of Elmer Fudd.

VA is going to the Dems, but Faux News seems to be holding out hope that it wont. Yeah sure, and monkeys will fly right outta my butt.

[irishgrl]

he could always try out for the live action version of Elmer Fudd.

VA is going to the Dems, but Faux News seems to be holding out hope that it wont. Yeah sure, and monkeys will fly right outta my butt.
I was under the impression that a recount will be likely there and could take several months :shrug:

[Nixxxed]

no, Dems won Montana, the count stands at 50/49. if we win VA, it will be 51/49 and Cheney wont be needed.



Nixxxed, catch UP!!!!!!
I'm confused. I thought that was what I said. But now I can't understand either of our posts. :laugh: Now *I* need a nap.

[irishgrl]

I would rile mary up on purpose :angel:

No, that is what I meant. So, VA must fall into the D slot.
Jason you are a tard. but I still luv ya :nod:

[irishgrl]

I'm confused. I thought that was what I said. But now I can't understand either of our posts. :laugh: Now *I* need a nap.
maybe I misunderstood you....It looked like you thought it was still a tie?

if not, my mistake :shrug:

[sparky]

Nice find as always Livia! However, this is one time I wish the Dixie Chicks cover of the song had been mentioned. :laugh:


Nice new sig pic of Zorro, Chuckster !

[estranged4life]

I was under the impression that a recount will be likely there and could take several months :shrug:

I know, but wont Allen just admit he lost so we wont have to go through more 2000 election like crappola recount mumbo-jumbo.

The Demos won and the Repubs are sore losers, get over it Repubs-I'm a Cubs fan, nuthing says loser like being a Cubs fan! Suck it up ya GOP wusses.

[irishgrl]

Most current VA news:

Virginia Democrat James Webb led Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) by about 7,000 votes out of 2.3 million cast. The final vote counting could take a week, with a winner certified on November 27 and any recount stretching into December, leaving Senate control uncertain.

The Allen campaign indicated it did not plan to concede before the process ended. "We'll see where the official tally stands on November 27 and we'll come back and visit with you then," Allen adviser Ed Gillespie told reporters in Richmond, Virginia.

thats a bit bigger lead than I last heard :blob2:

[Nixxxed]

Nice new sig pic of Zorro, Chuckster !
Thanks! He's being a little ****, since he now gets undivided attention. But I can't bear to scold him for anything after the hard year we've both had. Ah, kids - whattya gonna do? :D

[DavidMn]

I guess I'm a little late to the party. We here in southern Minnesota are very excited that Tim Walz was able to defeat 6-term incumbent Gil Gutnecht. It is s good day indeed!

[SuzeQuze]

I'm confused. I thought that was what I said. But now I can't understand either of our posts. :laugh: Now *I* need a nap.

me too! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[DavidMn]

I heard they finally called Montana. Is that true?

[estranged4life]

I heard they finally called Montana. Is that true?

the AP called it earlier today for the Democrat.

[DavidMn]

the AP called it earlier today for the Democrat.So that leaves only Virginia then. That certainly doesnt look too good for Allen with him being over 8000 votes behind.

[strandinthewind]

Although Allen is an ass, there were reported incidents of coting trouble. So, a recount is warranted.

Also, I believe, the absentee ballots have yet to be tallied, though, I think there are too few of them to make a difference on their own.

[DavidMn]

Although Allen is an ass, there were reported incidents of coting trouble. So, a recount is warranted.

Also, I believe, the absentee ballots have yet to be tallied, though, I think there are too few of them to make a difference on their own.I found it amusing that some poeple were griping in Pennsylvania that they thought they voted for Santorum and actually voted for Casey. Sorry people I dont think youre gonna find enought of that to turm that result around.

[gldstwmn]

Also, I just checked my local results and not a single person I voted for won. :laugh: Democrats could be competitive here again if they actually put some effort into it.

Maybe they can un-gerrymander the districts now that Delay is gone.

[gldstwmn]

Just got back from Republicanland....aka MY HELL!

It was horrid - and the congresswoman from my district won..boo

It pains me to see that bitch win again. Why can't they find a candidate that can beat her. She is bat **** crazy.

[DavidMn]

It pains me to see that bitch win again. Why can't they find a candidate that can beat her. She is bat **** crazy.One of those really out there right wingers?

[gldstwmn]

Well homegirl gave her victory speech as the first woman Speaker of the House and at this late hour it looks like the Senate could go too.Can someone please start impeachment hearings against the gaggle of war criminals in the White House????:shrug:

I'd love to see it happen. But Bush is a lame duck now. There are so many other things we need to do like find a way out of Iraq for starters. I would love to see the lot of them held accountable for their crimes.

[DrummerDeanna]

It pains me to see that bitch win again. Why can't they find a candidate that can beat her. She is bat **** crazy.

:nod: She is...but apparently so is the majority of Weld County...I'm seriously scared of what I saw last Saturday and last night. These people are hateful, sick assholes.

[irishgrl]

dingbat in Montana now refuses to concede. asswipe.

[markolas]

:laugh: I readily admit she is that and more - but the bitch can wear a Chanel suit like no one else and her hair is FIERCE :laugh:

She looks like a typical Southern-fried Baptist harpy to me. :shrug: :laugh:

She reminds me of my elementary school principal, or my aunt Carolyn. Both of them make me want to throw up. :laugh:

[markolas]

I can't believe Texas is stuck with Rick Perry again. Chris Bell probably would have won if the other two Republicans who pulled Liebermans (Strayhorn, Friedman) hadn't been in the race. :(

Also, I just checked my local results and not a single person I voted for won. :laugh: Democrats could be competitive here again if they actually put some effort into it.

I was surprised that Chris Bell came in second. I really thought it would be between Perry and Carole Keeton Strayhorn Mellencamp, or whatever she's calling herself now.

I'm not sure if the local candidates I voted for won or not. I'm assuming they did, this being Austin. :shrug:

[sparky]

She looks like a typical Southern-fried Baptist harpy to me. :shrug: :laugh:


I love the word Harpy.

[markolas]

I love the word Harpy.

I do, too. I had to think for a minute to come up with it, but it really is the perfect descriptive in this case. :D

[irishgrl]

WE DID IT!!!!
AP
Democrats take control of the Senate

By LIZ SIDOTI and BOB LEWIS, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994.

Jim Webb's squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in
Iraq. Allen was the sixth Republican incumbent senator defeated in Tuesday's elections.

The Senate had teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President
Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.

The Associated Press contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday.

The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236. Virginia has had two statewide vote recounts in modern history, but both resulted in vote changes of no more than a few hundred votes.

An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, said the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening.

The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.

[strandinthewind]

I do, too. I had to think for a minute to come up with it, but it really is the perfect descriptive in this case. :D

Oh - she is a C U Next Tuesday - no doubt about that :nod:

I just like the way she dresses. It is soooo stylish for ladies of her age. That whole Chanel, St. John, Prada - ladies who lunch look - which no principal I ever met had - then again, they were mostly nuns :eek: :laugh:

[irishgrl]

please see my previous post. Im doing the happy dance. :nod:

[markolas]

please see my previous post. Im doing the happy dance. :nod:

So they finally called it? That is great. I totally did not expect the Dems to take both houses of Congress (although I did hear that control of the House has never in history switched from one party to another without control of the Senate switching also), but was pleasantly surprised today. :D

[irishgrl]

So they finally called it? That is great. I totally did not expect the Dems to take both houses of Congress (although I did hear that control of the House has never in history switched from one party to another without control of the Senate switching also), but was pleasantly surprised today. :D
do it with me: The HAPPY Dance! :blob1: :blob2:

[markolas]

I just like the way she dresses. It is soooo stylish for ladies of her age. That whole Chanel, St. John, Prada - ladies who lunch look - which no principal I ever met had - then again, they were mostly nuns :eek: :laugh:

Oh, I doubt the principal was wearing designer clothes, but the look is about the same. Extremely conservative women's suit (complete with high collar and shoulder pads) with big gaudy gold earrings, make-up that looks like it was applied with a spatula, and hair teased to kingdom come with so much hairspray that you don't dare strike a match within 50 yards. And you can smell her perfume for about 10 minutes after she leaves the room.

[markolas]

do it with me: The HAPPY Dance! :blob1: :blob2:

Oh, believe me. I'm in excellent mood. Makes me forget all about the nasty message my mother left on my work voicemail yesterday. :D :blob2: :blob1:

[gldstwmn]

:nod: She is...but apparently so is the majority of Weld County...I'm seriously scared of what I saw last Saturday and last night. These people are hateful, sick assholes.

If I'd known where you were going I would have warned you. :laugh: Sorry.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It just amazes me how you can align yourself with a party that:



ahh.. but i do it so well. ;)

[The Tower]

a sad day for GOPers like myself.. my wine is right beside me! ;)
You're not a "GOPer", you fraud.

I did find a few bright spots tonight.. such as <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/MI/I/01/index.html">Michigan saying NO to affirmative action!</a> :blob2:
Well, you still have a long way to go. After all your coming out and blah, blah, blah.... I'm disappointed. Oh, well. I'll keep hoping for you.

[sparky]

You're not a "GOPer", you fraud.


Well, you still have a long way to go. After all your coming out and blah, blah, blah.... I'm disappointed. Oh, well. I'll keep hoping for you.

Somebody's feeling wound up.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Well, you still have a long way to go. After all your coming out and blah, blah, blah.... I'm disappointed. Oh, well. I'll keep hoping for you.

Interestingly, I think the vast majority of America is done with AA. I think they correctly feel this way for two reasons:

1. They see people not in need getting an advantage over them just because of their skin color, etc., and;

2. They feel that after 40 + years, too many people are using this as a crutch and the goal of the initial help to remedy a past wrong and make a person better is not being achieved.

This is based on anectdotal evidence, which is pretty strong - at least in my book.

Again, I think if race, gender, etc. were taken out of the equation and replaced with the far more emcompassing test of poverty, AA would be far more palatable to Americans. I mean how could poverty not be a more fair way if the push behind AA is to give the disadvantaged a leg up in the world. Moreover, don't all of the poor deserve an extra chance? Why should only black people, etc., get it? Why is the poor tax paying white sharecropper's child less in need than a poor black one's child? To me, the inherent unfairness there is just as bad or worse than the remedy trying to be cured by AA.

Having said that, I am for AA only in the case of education. I think it has no place at all in the workplace as far as hiring goes. But, them's fightin' words to those who want to IMO coddle those. Interestingly, if AA had worked for the past 40 years, there would be no or very little need for AA in the workplace :shrug:

Thus, I say limit it to education and base it on poverty as that is the fair thing to do.

____________________________________________________________

Also, I think he thinks being in the GOP has some sort of snob appeal. I also think many think this. Sort of like sleeping in the gutter next to the country club makes you a member when in reality the members of that club want no part of you and would like to see you dead or imprisoned for living for life and hurting no one.

[gldstwmn]

Also, I think he thinks being in the GOP has some sort of snob appeal.

Which is ridiculous when you think of who some of the Dems are, where they came from (family wise) and what schools they went to. I'm not saying this makes them better but if you want snob appeal there's plenty of blue blood in the Democratic party for you. I mean Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. :shrug: He is the true American success story IMO becuase he came from a middle class family and made it all the way to Oxford and President of the United States. Then you have the Kennedy's, Kerry, Dean, Rockefeller(!) and the like who came from money. The thing I most admire about people like the aforementioned is that none of them really had to work for a living if they chose. But they decided to dedicate themselves to a life in public service which certainly says a lot about them.

[estranged4life]

Watched the local news and there is only 1 recount going on in this state, Specifically for one of the OK House seats:

The Demo candidate (I dont recall his name) had 7046 votes
The Repub candidate (Ditto on the name) had 7044 votes

Now that is one close race!


In the OKC newspaper this morning there's an article about the "Blue Dog's" (National Democrats who are Conservative's) and how they have grown in numbers by about 47 members in Congress due to the Tuesday election.

The way I understand the article is the Dems are prepping for the next Presidential election by moving more towards the center than ever before to get the votes they will need.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You're not a "GOPer", you fraud.


Well, you still have a long way to go. After all your coming out and blah, blah, blah.... I'm disappointed. Oh, well. I'll keep hoping for you.

Yep.. I'm proudly out now have a fantastic group of friends.. support from family.. I go out to clubs every weekend.. have tons of fun.. even went to NC Pride last month!.. and after all that.. IM STILL a Republican! :)

And I have to say.. that I have met many gay republicans.. and have felt so encouraged by them. I'm glad I didn't give up on my party!

[strandinthewind]

. . . . I'm glad I didn't give up on my party!

I'll take the bait - what exactly about the party supports you?

If you are talking about less government in our personal lives, that is bogus because the D's do a far superior job there and have done so ince the 80's because:

1. You can be fired for being gay.

2. They want to imprison you for having sex of any kind.

3. They equate being gay (i.e. you) to beastiality.

4. If you spoke at the RNC, many would openly turn there backs on you and/or kneel and pray for your salvation.

5. They want to use the govt. to make everyone conform to Evangelical values and put any resistance to such in the guise of the opponents are against God, when in reality every American is free to practice whatever religion they choose, which is different than having the government sponser ONE religion, which is the R agenda.

6. No abortions (right to autonomy, etc. ) ever - at least not for poor people because the rich can always get them no matter the legality.

If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, the D's are FAR superior to the R party and have been since the 80's. I mean look at what W has done to the economy. Moreover, yes, there was a tax cut, which did spark the economy, but the R's spending (which doubled the Federal Debt in like three years when the D's left with an economy that was imperfect, but still viable and with a little tweaking like the tax cuts would have again soared ) makes that spark moot. Each American currently owes $30,000 plus as their part of the R induced debt. That is just insane for the party of fiscal responsibility.

If you are talking about national defense, the D's are better here as well because:

1. Iraq, which should need no explanation.

2. W ignored any and all warnings from Clinton (who caught and prosecuted terrorists and prevented terrorist attacks, though some occured) about OBL and Al-Q and instead concentrated on Iraq. Then, after failing to do anything about the Cole bombing, W gets caught off guard (though vaguely forewarned) on 9/11, he piddles for a month or two in Afgan., let's OBL escape, and then fails to learn his lesson and refocuses on Iraq, which he insisted on onvading even though he knew they posed far less of a threat (if at all) than he lead us to believe and he lied about Iraq's oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction.
____________________________________________________________

In sum, I am all for less govt. and lower taxes. But, to say the R's had advocated anything like that for the last quarter of a century is just wrong, misguided, and assinine.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'll take the bait - what exactly about the party supports you?

If you are talking about less government in our personal lives, that is bogus because the D's do a far superior job there and have done so ince the 80's because:

1. You can be fired for being gay.

2. They want to imprison you for having sex of any kind.

3. They equate being gay (i.e. you) to beastiality.

4. If you spoke at the RNC, many would openly turn there backs on you and/or kneel and pray for your salvation.

5. They want to use the govt. to make everyone conform to Evangelical values and put any resistance to such in the guise of the opponents are against God, when in reality every American is free to practice whatever religion they choose, which is different than having the government sponser ONE religion, which is the R agenda.

6. No abortions (right to autonomy, etc. ) ever - at least not for poor people because the rich can always get them no matter the legality.

If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, the D's are FAR superior to the R party and have been since the 80's. I mean look at what W has done to the economy. Moreover, yes, there was a tax cut, which did spark the economy, but the R's spending (which doubled the Federal Debt in like three years when the D's left with an economy that was imperfect, but still viable and with a little tweaking like the tax cuts would have again soared ) makes that spark moot. Each American currently owes $30,000 plus as their part of the R induced debt. That is just insane for the party of fiscal responsibility.

If you are talking about national defense, the D's are better here as well because:

1. Iraq, which should need no explanation.

2. W ignored any and all warnings from Clinton (who caught and prosecuted terrorists and prevented terrorist attacks, though some occured) about OBL and Al-Q and instead concentrated on Iraq. Then, after failing to do anything about the Cole bombing, W gets caught off guard (though vaguely forewarned) on 9/11, he piddles for a month or two in Afgan., let's OBL escape, and then fails to learn his lesson and refocuses on Iraq, which he insisted on onvading even though he knew they posed far less of a threat (if at all) than he lead us to believe and he lied about Iraq's oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction.
____________________________________________________________

In sum, I am all for less govt. and lower taxes. But, to say the R's had advocated anything like that for the last quarter of a century is just wrong, misguided, and assinine.

there wasn't any bait to take.. because this isn't anything i question. i know where i stand and i know why i stand by the party i stand by.

im not on here enough anymore to get into any kind of long drawn out debate.. i just don't have the time, or dare i say.. i just don't care. :shrug:

if you want my opinions and views on all of this stuff the best thing for you to do is go to www.myspace.com/xwarmwaysx i post political blogs often.

[DrummerDeanna]

I'll take the bait - what exactly about the party supports you?

If you are talking about less government in our personal lives, that is bogus because the D's do a far superior job there and have done so ince the 80's because:

1. You can be fired for being gay.

2. They want to imprison you for having sex of any kind.

3. They equate being gay (i.e. you) to beastiality.

4. If you spoke at the RNC, many would openly turn there backs on you and/or kneel and pray for your salvation.

5. They want to use the govt. to make everyone conform to Evangelical values and put any resistance to such in the guise of the opponents are against God, when in reality every American is free to practice whatever religion they choose, which is different than having the government sponser ONE religion, which is the R agenda.

6. No abortions (right to autonomy, etc. ) ever - at least not for poor people because the rich can always get them no matter the legality.

If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, the D's are FAR superior to the R party and have been since the 80's. I mean look at what W has done to the economy. Moreover, yes, there was a tax cut, which did spark the economy, but the R's spending (which doubled the Federal Debt in like three years when the D's left with an economy that was imperfect, but still viable and with a little tweaking like the tax cuts would have again soared ) makes that spark moot. Each American currently owes $30,000 plus as their part of the R induced debt. That is just insane for the party of fiscal responsibility.

If you are talking about national defense, the D's are better here as well because:

1. Iraq, which should need no explanation.

2. W ignored any and all warnings from Clinton (who caught and prosecuted terrorists and prevented terrorist attacks, though some occured) about OBL and Al-Q and instead concentrated on Iraq. Then, after failing to do anything about the Cole bombing, W gets caught off guard (though vaguely forewarned) on 9/11, he piddles for a month or two in Afgan., let's OBL escape, and then fails to learn his lesson and refocuses on Iraq, which he insisted on onvading even though he knew they posed far less of a threat (if at all) than he lead us to believe and he lied about Iraq's oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction.
____________________________________________________________

In sum, I am all for less govt. and lower taxes. But, to say the R's had advocated anything like that for the last quarter of a century is just wrong, misguided, and assinine.

I think I'm going to print this out and mail it to everybody :thumbsup:

You said it all....and you're my new hero :D

[strandinthewind]

there wasn't any bait to take.. because this isn't anything i question. i know where i stand and i know why i stand by the party i stand by.

im not on here enough anymore to get into any kind of long drawn out debate.. i just don't have the time, or dare i say.. i just don't care. :shrug:

if you want my opinions and views on all of this stuff the best thing for you to do is go to www.myspace.com/xwarmwaysx i post political blogs often.


You stand with those who everything you are against. Can't you see that :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

I think I'm going to print this out and mail it to everybody :thumbsup:

You said it all....and you're my new hero :D

I was thinking that too, sometimes it is hard to verbalize what is in your head. Strand did it so well here. And I thereby feed his already corpulent ego. :xoxo:

[mikeschmike]

You stand with everything you are against. Can't you see that :eek:

This is the same person who wanted Angela to win project runway, if that's any indication of taste. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I was thinking that too, sometimes it is hard to verbalize what is in your head. Strand did it so well here. And I thereby feed his already corpulent ego. :xoxo:

MY EGO KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, it just boggles my mind when people say that the R party is the party of less government and less taxes, which the facts (which are the only thing that interest me) clearly indicate otherwise.

I mean his blog goes on about oil exploration and alternative fuels and the D. agenda. To me, exploring alt. fuels instead of exploring for oil is a win win on all levels including national defense. Also, there has been no Federal minimum wage hike since like 97 - how the fukc is that fair to anyone :eek: Though, to be fair, some states have raised it on their own.

In the end, he can think what he wants, but that does not make it true.

[ontheEdgeof17]

This is the same person who wanted Angela to win project runway, if that's any indication of taste. :shrug:

You know you wanted to see 12 multicolored poofy skirts with tacky flower-mabobs go down the runway in the finale.

[carrie721]

This is the same person who wanted Angela to win project runway, if that's any indication of taste. :shrug:

:xoxo:

You know you wanted to see 12 multicolored poofy skirts with tacky flower-mabobs go down the runway in the finale.

:xoxo:

i <3 you guys.

[mikeschmike]

You know you wanted to see 12 multicolored poofy skirts with tacky flower-mabobs go down the runway in the finale.

I would have loved to see it! I would have also loved to see everybody's face in that tent. Not to mention the resounding echoes of "Oh helllllllllllllllllllll no!"

[The Tower]

You stand with those who everything you are against. Can't you see that :eek:
It's not worth it, Jason.

This is why I said Brandon is a fraud- cuz I just have a gut feeling that he really is not mentally or emotionally in sync with what republicans are all about. The term "gay republican" is an oxymoron, no matter what anyone says. While I think Brandon (and all "Log Cabin republicans" for that matter :rolleyes: ) may think that being a "gay republican" has a certain cachet, most of them are all too eager to benefit from the accomplishments and struggles that gay democrats fought to bring to fruition.

It's easy to sit around and spout all this stuff that actually spites you, when in fact, there will always be the contingent of gays that will stand guard and take the time and effort to protect our liberties, REGARDLESS of the fact that "gay republicans" will continue to betray the gay community. Which is something that "gay republicans" will never understand, nor appreciate.

[Rickypt]

im not on here enough anymore to get into any kind of long drawn out debate.. i just don't have the time, or dare i say.. i just don't care. :shrug:

if you want my opinions and views on all of this stuff the best thing for you to do is go to www.myspace.com/xwarmwaysx i post political blogs often.

So you come into this thread, state your disappointment with the election, cheer the loss of affirmative action, and then wave us off when challenged and tell us we need to go to your myspace?

[Nixxxed]

there wasn't any bait to take.. because this isn't anything i question. i know where i stand and i know why i stand by the party i stand by.

im not on here enough anymore to get into any kind of long drawn out debate.. i just don't have the time, or dare i say.. i just don't care. :shrug:

if you want my opinions and views on all of this stuff the best thing for you to do is go to www.myspace.com/xwarmwaysx i post political blogs often.
How come every time you come around my London, London Bridge wanna go down?


Get up out my face
Before I turn around and spray yo ass with Mace

[strandinthewind]

It's not worth it, Jason.

This is why I said Brandon is a fraud- cuz I just have a gut feeling that he really is not mentally or emotionally in sync with what republicans are all about. The term "gay republican" is an oxymoron, no matter what anyone says. While I think Brandon (and all "Log Cabin republicans" for that matter :rolleyes: ) may think that being a "gay republican" has a certain cachet, most of them are all too eager to benefit from the accomplishments and struggles that gay democrats fought to bring to fruition.

It's easy to sit around and spout all this stuff that actually spites you, when in fact, there will always be the contingent of gays that will stand guard and take the time and effort to protect our liberties, REGARDLESS of the fact that "gay republicans" will continue to betray the gay community. Which is something that "gay republicans" will never understand, nor appreciate.

In defense of them, I do know some gay Republicans who work tirelessly to bring about awareness and change in the party. They have made some big advances I must say. But, they are not the norm by far. Most gay Republicans, to me, actually believe the Republican party stands for less taxes and less government, which is just untrue, at least according to the facts and it is these, which are IMO 99% of the gay Republicans, that betray the gay "cause" for this mistaken belief and, likely, greed on many levels.

Also, I am no Democrat, but I readily admit the Democrats for the last 25+ years have been the party of fiscal responsibility and comparatively less government -- and I find that a little scary :nod:

[ontheEdgeof17]

How come every time you come around my London, London Bridge wanna go down?


Get up out my face
Before I turn around and spray yo ass with Mace

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The Gospel According to Fergie.

[The Tower]

In defense of them, I do know some gay Republicans who work tirelessly to bring about awareness and change in the party.
It's fruitless.


They have made some big advances I must say.
You are seriously delusional.

But, they are not the norm by far. Most gay Republicans, to me, actually believe the Republican party stands for less taxes and less government, which is just untrue, at least according to the facts and it is these, which are IMO 99% of the gay Republicans, that betray the gay "cause" for this mistaken belief and, likely, greed on many levels.
"Gay Republicans" equal only one thing, my friend- Mammon. It's all about the cash and nothing else. Every other principle is sold out to the almight dollar.

Also, I am no Democrat
Duh.

However, oddly enough- you do something to me...

Something that simply mystifies... me
Tell me, why should it be,
You have the power to hypnotize me

Let me live 'neath your spell
*You* do that voodoo that you do so well
For you do something to me
That nobody else... could- do....

[sparky]

Though I think being a gay republican is silly and without any point at all...I can see why people do it. Obviously their big picture political ideals take precedence over their personal political values re: their sexual identity. There is no changing the R party since they sold their souls to the religious fanatics to gain power. The party will never get it's soul back. But, I suppose it's kind of cute that the gay r's think they can change a group of people who would just as well see them dead.

Just for the record I find most dems reprehensible and idiotic these days too. For different reasons. But, there are two or three issues they usually stand up for, and it is those that swing me into their camp more often.

[amber]

Though I think being a gay republican is silly and without any point at all...I can see why people do it. Obviously their big picture political ideals take precedence over their personal political values re: their sexual identity. There is no changing the R party since they sold their souls to the religious fanatics to gain power. The party will never get it's soul back. But, I suppose it's kind of cute that the gay r's think they can change a group of people who would just as well see them dead.

Just for the record I find most dems reprehensible and idiotic these days too. For different reasons. But, there are two or three issues they usually stand up for, and it is those that swing me into their camp more often.

I'm not trying to jump on your post, but I agree, and think you stated it well. I think they are working for Repubs in the old fashioned sense of what Repubs were, which was largely more like what is now considered Libertarian, sort of an Ayn Randian thing, and had much less to do with morals, and behavior, and seshuality, and unborn babies,
and much more to do with eschewing excessive government interference into business, and all aspects of life, and to let unbridled (unregulated) supply and demand rule the market (world), however it may play out, and how it always plays out is that the big companies exploit people to make huge profits, and if their money eventually gains them a monopoly, so be it. Even a vertical monopoly. And the gov't shouldn't interfere with the growth of industry and the massive prosperity that some few can realize if they have enough people working under them for few, or none, wages. And by unregulated, I mean, unregulated. In any way. It's the New Math! Is it classicly called the "Fiscal Republican"?

These are the old fashioned, pure Republican values that I think the Log Cabin Gays believe in. :shrug:

Now, let us all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and reminisce....:laugh:

But for real, it was a dark day when the Republican party really took up morals in it's platform. Reagan is the...new version of that. He brought it back when everyone had worked so hard not to make it relevant.

And by "classic" Republican I mean post Lincoln, post Industrial Revolution, but pre...mmm...EisenhowereyNixon. Morals started to come a bit more into play with the Civil Rights movement, but didn't become solidified as what they are today until (IMO) after Nixon.

This is one of my favorite times for history class. 18lateish to nowish. Though most history is really interesting.

My dollar sign point oh two.

[irishgrl]

I'll take the bait - what exactly about the party supports you?

If you are talking about less government in our personal lives, that is bogus because the D's do a far superior job there and have done so ince the 80's because:

1. You can be fired for being gay.

2. They want to imprison you for having sex of any kind.

3. They equate being gay (i.e. you) to beastiality.

4. If you spoke at the RNC, many would openly turn there backs on you and/or kneel and pray for your salvation.

5. They want to use the govt. to make everyone conform to Evangelical values and put any resistance to such in the guise of the opponents are against God, when in reality every American is free to practice whatever religion they choose, which is different than having the government sponser ONE religion, which is the R agenda.

6. No abortions (right to autonomy, etc. ) ever - at least not for poor people because the rich can always get them no matter the legality.

If you are talking about fiscal responsibility, the D's are FAR superior to the R party and have been since the 80's. I mean look at what W has done to the economy. Moreover, yes, there was a tax cut, which did spark the economy, but the R's spending (which doubled the Federal Debt in like three years when the D's left with an economy that was imperfect, but still viable and with a little tweaking like the tax cuts would have again soared ) makes that spark moot. Each American currently owes $30,000 plus as their part of the R induced debt. That is just insane for the party of fiscal responsibility.

If you are talking about national defense, the D's are better here as well because:

1. Iraq, which should need no explanation.

2. W ignored any and all warnings from Clinton (who caught and prosecuted terrorists and prevented terrorist attacks, though some occured) about OBL and Al-Q and instead concentrated on Iraq. Then, after failing to do anything about the Cole bombing, W gets caught off guard (though vaguely forewarned) on 9/11, he piddles for a month or two in Afgan., let's OBL escape, and then fails to learn his lesson and refocuses on Iraq, which he insisted on onvading even though he knew they posed far less of a threat (if at all) than he lead us to believe and he lied about Iraq's oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction.
____________________________________________________________

In sum, I am all for less govt. and lower taxes. But, to say the R's had advocated anything like that for the last quarter of a century is just wrong, misguided, and assinine.
I think I am going to have this post framed. FRAMED I tell ya!

[irishgrl]

This country began its downhill slide with Reagan. for true. Only bright spots since then were Carter and Clinton.

Brandon is now a caricature, spoof worthy.

[strandinthewind]

It's fruitless.



You are seriously delusional . . . .

All I know is what I saw in this instance and it was as I said. Is it fruitless on a national scale? Who can say. All I know is I feel better having these people working on the inside. I think their actions are just as noble as those of non-R's who make sacrifices. I mean these people I am talking about live with lots of heartache, have been threatened, etc. And, they have made great advances in the way many R's think about gay people. I know because I have seen it with my own two eyes as opposed to your one, Martha the cyclops :wavey:

Interestingly, the same could be said in theory for the D's as they are hardly any better than the R's. I cite to the fact that you can still be thrown out of the military for being gay and the DOMA, which they both supported. The vast majority of the D's also support no gay marriage and many no civil unions, etc. The D's are also hardly huge supporters of AIDS related causes ( http://www.actupny.org/reports/bcn/BCNclinton.html ) -- Also, W did NOT rescind the Federal Executive Order making it illegal to fire a Federal Govt. employee solely for being gay, as many here predicted he would do.

So, while I totally get that the D's are better than the R's on most gay related issues, they are hardly with clean hands - though granted the D's do not want to jail people for having consenual gay sex. So, supporting them is just a variation of supporting bad people when you think about irt. That is why my friends work so hard to change the Republican party. Again, I cannot see how having people working within the Republican party is a bad thing or really any different than a gay person lobbying the Democratic party.

[SuzeQuze]

This country began its downhill slide with Reagan. for true. Only bright spots since then were Carter and Clinton.

Brandon is now a caricature, spoof worthy.

It's just a page from the righty playbook. Don't talk to liberals because they're nutjobs. What a hoot! :laugh: Remember, he worships Ms Coulter.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Remember, he worships Ms Coulter.

I know - I mean talk about a distorter of the truth :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

I know - I mean talk about a distorter of the truth :eek:

Right, and we're "Godless" which is such a load of crap.

[strandinthewind]

Right, and we're "Godless" which is such a load of crap.

She takes the truth and then spins it for her schtick - and then idiots take that for the truth.

[mikeschmike]

She takes the truth and then spins it for her schtick - and then idiots take that for the truth.

Has anyone heard anything new on her little voting scandal?

[gldstwmn]

This country began its downhill slide with Reagan.

That was when the dismantling of middle class values as we knew it-medical insurance, pensions, unions etc. began. People thought he was such a nice guy. He was an actor working on behalf of a group of people who wanted to wage war on the middle class and they damn near killed it until Clinton came along. We got a little back then. Now we have to figure out how to repair the damage of six years of the Neocons trying to again make the middle class their slaves.
BTW, Carter was before Reagan. :sorry:

[SuzeQuze]

That was when the dismantling of middle class values as we knew it-medical insurance, pensions, unions etc. began. People thought he was such a nice guy. He was an actor working on behalf of a group of people who wanted to wage war on the middle class and they damn near killed it until Clinton came along. We got a little back then. Now we have to figure out how to repair the damage of six years of the Neocons trying to again make the middle class their slaves.
BTW, Carter was before Reagan. :sorry:

I think we're going to make gains on that front rather quickly (knocks wood). Again, this is just an intuitive guess based on nothing else. But remember, I was right about the R senators conceding without recounts! :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

Right, and we're "Godless" which is such a load of crap.

Right. When in thruth we generally just don't USE god for political means (though I saw that some Dems were doing that...mostly out of necessity)...

When I was at the Republican camp on election night they announced the results of only three of our state's referendums. The two concerning gay marriage/domestic partnerships and marijuana possesion.

My stomach turned at the shouts and cheers that went up when they announced the passage of a constitutional defiinition of marriage between a man and a woman, and the failure of a domestic partnership bill :(

BUT the one that made me chuckle and bite my tongue was when the guy said, "And the one I like to call the Democrat maker....the marijuana bill...failed!"

I wanted to say something to the effect of.....so then the gay bills...Republican Maker...we all know you Republican men like your gay sex on the side....and good thing that wasn't a meth bill...another Republican maker (Ted Haggard reference)....

But of course, I was good and simply did my job....:D

Anyway...the repubs are cracked.

[Nixxxed]

Has anyone heard anything new on her little voting scandal?
It's in the process of being referred from the voting board to county prosecutors. In the meantime, she didn't even vote on Tuesday. :lol:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/local_news/epaper/2006/11/10/a2a_jose_col_1110.html

Seen & Heard...

. . . No "I Voted" stickers for them: Mark Foley, the former U.S. congressman in rehab for alcohol and sex-related problems, didn't send an absentee ballot request to the St. Lucie County elections office. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, accused of voting in the wrong precinct earlier this year, didn't cast her ballot, contributing further to the demise of the GOP in Congress . . .

[SuzeQuze]

... In the meantime, she didn't even vote on Tuesday. :lol:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/local_news/epaper/2006/11/10/a2a_jose_col_1110.html

Then she'll be no disappointment to the Righty Hypocrites Club!

[irishgrl]

That was when the dismantling of middle class values as we knew it-medical insurance, pensions, unions etc. began. People thought he was such a nice guy. He was an actor working on behalf of a group of people who wanted to wage war on the middle class and they damn near killed it until Clinton came along. We got a little back then. Now we have to figure out how to repair the damage of six years of the Neocons trying to again make the middle class their slaves.
BTW, Carter was before Reagan. :sorry:
oops, you're right! well he was the bright spot between Nixon and Reagan then!

Think about it: the truly abysmal lowpoints this country has had have come under Republican corruption. Watergate Plamegate, Iraq, Vietnam, 9/11, (actually anything since Monkey Boy SEIZED office has been abysmal)

The WORST they could throw at Clinton was his lie about extramarital sex. Oh Brother. I guess I should just be glad there is now a balance of power, and hopefully it will help bring about change.

[strandinthewind]

. . . The WORST they could throw at Clinton was his lie about extramarital sex . . . .

and the millions of our money he spent trying to cover it up, which I totally agree is far less offensive than a war for no reason and thousands of our brave guys and gals dead for that shiitte.

[gldstwmn]

and the millions of our money he spent trying to cover it up,

No, no, no you don't. That bull**** was started by the Republicans. The taxpayers paid for Ken Starr and all that Whitewater bull****. Clinton had just as much right as anyone else to privacy when it came to his sex life. It was afforded to ALL former presidents. :nod: The people that were behind that whole "Hunting Of The President" (see the documentary, it's great) were responsible for that huge waste of time and waste of taxpayers money.

[SuzeQuze]

No, no, no you don't. That bull**** was started by the Republicans. The taxpayers paid for Ken Starr and all that Whitewater bull****. Clinton had just as much right as anyone else to privacy when it came to his sex life. It was afforded to ALL former presidents. :nod: The people that were behind that whole "Hunting Of The President" (see the documentary, it's great) were responsible for that huge waste of time and waste of taxpayers money.

That endlessly angered me. And that Star report is the porn of a sexually repressed sorry ass excuse for a man.

[strandinthewind]

No, no, no you don't. That bull**** was started by the Republicans. The taxpayers paid for Ken Starr and all that Whitewater bull****. Clinton had just as much right as anyone else to privacy when it came to his sex life. It was afforded to ALL former presidents. :nod: The people that were behind that whole "Hunting Of The President" (see the documentary, it's great) were responsible for that huge waste of time and waste of taxpayers money.

All I am saying is that if Clinton had said "yes" when asked in the depo and, more importantly, by the media - if he had the affair, millions in govt. money would have been saved. But, he did not do that. He tried to cover it up by sending cabinet members and others out on the talk shows to deny the affair. Then, he used his influence to get her the job, etc. All of that was using govt. time and resources :shrug: If he had been honest, that money would not have been spent. I mean if W did that, you all would be all over him like white on rice. I use Foley as an example - - do you think Foley deserves to have that kept private - after all 17 is the age of consent in DC :shrug:

So, regardless of the hunt for him, which I readily admit there was, his own behavior contributed to that and it cost us money as well as the hunt costing us money in vain as well.

Now, if you want to get into whether he should have been asked because of some privacy deal, that is another deal. But, he did not respond with "you should not ask me that question" - - he responded with I did not have sexual relations with that woman - and he said it thinking she had been bought off. Sorry, he reaped what he sewed there and it wound up costing the taxpayers. How anyone can see it any differently is to me completely ignoring the facts, which are all that interest me.

[irishgrl]

I keep telling you Clinton did NOT get Monica that job. I wish I would have held onto her book, she plainly said she got that job without his help.

you keep singing your tired old "anti-Clinton" song, its sad really....

[strandinthewind]

I keep telling you Clinton did NOT get Monica that job. I wish I would have held onto her book, she plainly said she got that job without his help.


and she is SUCH a credible witness

Better yet, maybe she signed an affidavit saying that about the job and gave it to VJ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You are pathetic in your blind support of him. If an R had done that, you would be all over him for taking advantage of a very young woman, etc. But, Clinton did it, so it's okay. Give me a break.

[irishgrl]

and she is SUCH a credible witness

Better yet, maybe she signed an affidavit saying that about the job and gave it to VJ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You are pathetic in your blind support of him. If an R had done that, you would be all over him for taking advantage of a very young woman, etc. But, Clinton did it, so it's okay. Give me a break.
I am believing MONICA, cant you read?

as for the sex, it was consensual between two adults, so I have nothing to say.
Clinton had to answer to Hilary for his affair and I wouldnt wish that on anyone, so IMO, he got punished plenty.

btw, you will notice that I have said ZIP about anyone's sex activities, not even Foley's! You wont find one word about that topic from me on these boards. so there!

[strandinthewind]

. . . btw, you will notice that I have said ZIP about anyone's sex activities, not even Foley's! You wont find one word about that topic from me on these boards. so there!

That was not my point. My point was and is - do you think it was appropriate for Foley to be ousted from the House based on his activities. Clearly, the emails suggest if not state the acts were consenual :shrug:

BTW - that is a yes or no question - so please respond accordingly :wavey:

As for Lewiasky and her credibility - let's let the facts speak for themselves - this will, however, require you, Ms. Ostrich, to take your head out of the sand :laugh: Maybe Vernon Jordan (the President's lawyer) was just being nice to Lewinsky just like he was to all the other interns - oh wait a minute - he wasn't that nice to all of them - just Lewinsky and her affidavits :rolleyes:

__________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON -- Prosecutors have gathered evidence documenting a sudden burst of contacts between presidential confidant Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky over a month's time: Four meetings, nearly a dozen phone calls and a package sent by courier.

The new details of Jordan's contacts with the former White House intern show the intensity of efforts to find a job for Lewinsky in the days just before and just after she emerged as a potential witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

Jordan had been scheduled to testify Thursday before the grand jury investigating an alleged presidential affair and cover-up but his appearance was postponed late Wednesday.

Jordan's first face-to-face meeting with the former White House intern was Dec. 11 at his Washington office. Lewinsky had sent packages to Jordan and presidential secretary Betty Currie three days earlier, according to interviews with several individuals familiar with the Lewinsky investigation. All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Jordan's first contacts with Lewinsky about a job occurred a week before she was subpoenaed to testify in the Jones case -- but after Clinton's private lawyer was informed she might become a witness.

The contacts, which included three additional meetings, a ride in a chauffeur-driven car, and approximately 10 phone calls, ended the second week of January, the individuals said.

Jordan's last meeting with her came the week of Jan. 12 -- the same week Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, unbeknownst to the White House, obtained secretly recorded tapes suggesting Lewinsky had a presidential affair and was asked to lie about it under oath in the Jones case.

Those tapes prompted an expansion of the Whitewater investigation that has cast a spotlight on how a prominent Washington lawyer became the contact point for the one-time intern.

Prosecutors are trying to determine whether Jordan's assistance in finding Lewinsky a job and legal counsel in late December was designed to influence her testimony in the Jones lawsuit.

They already possess tapes in which Lewinsky suggests Jordan and Clinton encouraged her to lie about her relationship with the president -- a charge both men deny.

The White House declined comment Wednesday, as did Jordan's attorney, William Hundley. Deborah Gershman, Starr's spokeswoman, said: "We decline comment."

The White House, Jordan and other early witnesses in the case initially received subpoenas from a a grand jury in Alexandria, Va. A few days later, the subpoenas were reissued to direct the witnesses to the grand jury in Washington, where all the key players and events occurred.

"They were engaged in forum shopping in my estimation," said Michael Zeldin, a former independent counsel and prosecutor.

"What that means is they don't want to try the case in the District of Columbia if they have a case against Vernon Jordan," a former civil rights activist popular in Washington, Zeldin said.

The day after the Lewinsky controversy erupted, Jordan made his one and only public statement. His effort to find her a job was nothing more than a "helping hand" prompted by a call from Currie, a Lewinsky friend and the president's personal secretary, Jordan said.

He also said that Lewinsky told him in no uncertain terms that she never had a sexual relationship with Clinton and that it was only after she received the subpoena in the Jones case that he helped her find a lawyer.

According to interviews with several individuals familiar with the Lewinsky case, the evidence suggests Jordan first hooked up with Lewinsky the week of Dec. 8.

According to those interviews:


Starr's office has records from a Washington courier service showing on Dec. 8 a courier picked up two packages from Lewinsky at the Pentagon, where she then worked, and delivered one to Currie's office and the other to Jordan's law firm.

Jordan had been contacted by Currie around that time and asked whether he could help find a job for her in public relations in New York.

The package apparently contained Lewinsky's resumes, which Jordan then forwarded to three New York companies, including an affiliate of the Revlon cosmetic giant. Jordan sits on Revlon's board of directors.

Three days before the package was sent, Clinton's private attorney had been notified by Jones' lawyers that Lewinsky could be a witness in that lawsuit.

Lewinsky met with Jordan at his Washington office on Dec. 11.
Eight days later, Lewinsky received a subpoena from Jones' attorneys and set off on a series of calls, apparently concerned about becoming a witness in the investigation.

Jordan met Dec. 19 with Lewinsky to discuss her concerns, and he arranged for her to meet with a friend of his, lawyer Francis Carter, so she could have legal counsel.

Three days later, Jordan and Lewinsky traveled in his chauffeur-driven car to meet Carter. Carter and Lewinsky prepared an affidavit for the Jones case in which she denied having a sexual relationship with the president.

That affidavit bearing Lewinsky's signature was dated Jan. 7.

Throughout this period, the sources said, there were several phone contacts between Lewinsky and Jordan's office -- just under a dozen in all -- related to the effort to find her a job.

On Jan. 8, Jordan telephoned Revlon executive Ronald Perelman to pitch Lewinsky for a job. A few days later, a Revlon affiliate offered her a low-level public relations job.

Jordan next met with Lewinsky at his office the week of Jan. 12, when she came around to thank him for his efforts in finding the job, the sources said.

However, Revlon withdrew the job a few days later when Lewinsky emerged as a central figure in the investigation of the alleged affair and coverup.


___________________________________________________

I mean COME ON - why did she sign that Affidavit when she had the stained dress. But, you will believe Clinton no matter how many facts defy believing that. I mean men have been hanged on less damning evidence.

[strandinthewind]

Here's another :wavey:

By TIM WEINER with NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON -- Shortly after 10 a.m. on Jan. 17, a Saturday, the president of the United States stepped out of the White House into the back of a black limousine and rode a block to his lawyer's office to undergo a six-hour grilling in the case of Paula Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton.

For six weeks, the president's lawyers had known that he might be asked a startling question: Did you have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? When the question came, the president's body tensed and his jaw tightened, said a lawyer involved in the case, and, under oath, he denied it.

The questions continued: Had the president been alone with Lewinsky? Had he given her gifts? He said he might have been alone with her briefly while she performed some clerical task, and he might have given her some presidential souvenirs, the lawyer recalled.

The deposition ended, President Clinton returned to the White House, canceled dinner plans with his wife and called his personal secretary, Betty Currie, asking her to meet him at the White House the next morning.

When they met, the president asserted that he had never been alone with Lewinsky at the White House, said lawyers familiar with Mrs. Currie's account. But that assertion did not square with Mrs. Currie's recollection.

In addition, Mrs. Currie had turned over to investigators a hat pin, a brooch and a dress she retrieved from Lewinsky, the lawyers said, items that are believed to have been given to her by the president but which do not fit his description of White House souvenirs. It is not clear who, if anyone, instructed Mrs. Currie to retrieve the gifts.

Was Clinton less than truthful about his relationship with Lewinsky, the 24-year-old former White House intern? Was he using his trusted secretary to hide evidence from Mrs. Jones, the former Arkansas state employee suing him over what she says was a crude sexual advance nearly seven years ago?

The president's battle with the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr -- and, perhaps, Clinton's place in history -- may depend on the answers. If he lied, or if he urged others to lie or conceal evidence, he could face the threat of impeachment.

How did Clinton become the first president forced to testify under oath about his private life? How did the Jones case -- once demeaned by the president's lawyers as third-rate "tabloid trash" -- come to threaten Clinton's presidency? The answers lie in a detailed look at the recent past.

When Mrs. Jones' lawyers learned of Lewinsky's existence, it was as if two live wires had met in an incendiary tangle.

The lawyers' hunt for information about Lewinsky, which they sought to buttress Mrs. Jones' charge of sexual misconduct by Clinton, led directly to Starr's investigation into the possibility of perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels. Now Starr is demanding that Mrs. Jones' lawyers turn over everything they have learned in their search for women who contend they have had sexual encounters with Clinton.

The two cases merged that Saturday morning. As the president testified, with Mrs. Jones staring him in the face during the deposition, Lewinsky was at home at the Watergate, recovering from the shock of her life.

Twelve hours earlier, she ended an intense encounter with federal investigators pursuing the president on Starr's behalf. The investigators confronted Lewinsky with the devastating news that her colleague and confidante Linda Tripp had been taping their intimate telephone conversations for months.

Tripp had told Starr's investigators that Lewinsky lied in her affidavit in the Jones case by denying that she had ever had sex with Clinton. While Tripp was working undercover for Starr, she was preparing to file an affidavit in Jones vs. Clinton, swearing that Lewinsky "had a sexual relationship with President Clinton."

The tapes presented the threat of prison for Lewinsky unless she disavowed her affidavit and cooperated with Starr. The tapes recorded Lewinsky saying that the president "won't settle" the Jones case because "he's in denial," according to published excerpts of the tapes. If so, his refusal had turned that private lawsuit into a potential personal and political disaster.

Conservative Group Offers to Help Jones

The miasma enveloping the White House began rising four months ago.

On Oct. 1, the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal center in Virginia, publicly offered to help Mrs. Jones. The institute found Mrs. Jones new lawyers from the Dallas firm of Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke and offered to pay her legal expenses.

In the first week of October, a woman telephoned the Rutherford Institute with an anonymous tip: a woman named Monica had had sex with the president in the White House. The same tipster, described by the man who took the call as "a nervous young woman," called back in late October, providing a surname: Lewinsky.

Days after the first tip, the Dallas lawyers telephoned Tripp. Newsweek quoted her in its Aug. 11 issue as a witness to a supposed sexual encounter between the president and Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer. A lawyer involved in the chain of events said Tripp later gave the lawyers Lewinsky's name. Tripp's lawyer, James Moody, denies that. The question is unresolved.

Lewinsky Gets Help With Job Interviews

On Oct. 7, Lewinsky sent the first of nine packages from her office at the Pentagon to the White House and to the office of Vernon Jordan, Clinton's friend and confidant. The packages contained, among other things, letters and documents relating to her search for a new job. A key question for Starr is whether the White House and Jordan helped her find a job for reasons beyond altruism.

Two weeks later, Lewinsky secured a job interview with Bill Richardson, the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, arranged by a White House deputy chief of staff, John Podesta, at Mrs. Currie's request.

On Oct. 22, Richardson had a 40-minute interview with Lewinsky in Richardson's living room at the Watergate apartment and hotel complex, where she lives and where he maintains an apartment. In November, Lewinsky was offered a job on Richardson's public relations staff.

But Lewinsky eventually declined the offer. She wanted a better-paying position in the private sector in New York.

In early December, Jordan talked to Lewinsky about helping her find that job. The go-between for their discussions was again Mrs. Currie. Jordan set up interviews for Lewinsky at three companies where he had personal and corporate connections: Revlon, American Express and Young & Rubicam, the advertising agency.

Dec. 5 was the deadline for submitting witness lists in the Jones case. And on that list, on that day, the president's lawyers saw Lewinsky's name for the first time.

From that moment on, the paths of two people from two different worlds -- Paula Jones from Lonoke, Ark., and Monica Lewinsky from Beverly Hills, Calif. -- were on course to collide at the White House.

Subpoena Seeks Gifts to Lewinsky

Dec. 19, a Friday, Mrs. Jones' lawyers served Lewinsky with a subpoena requesting information, including any gifts from the president. She called a Washington lawyer, Francis Carter, on Jordan's recommendation.

Christmas Eve was Lewinsky's last day of work at the Pentagon. She still did not have a new job.

On or about Dec. 28, a Sunday, she had a private talk with Clinton at the White House, said lawyers in the case. The president told her not to worry about being drawn into the lawsuit and advised her to describe her earlier White House visits as meetings with Mrs. Currie, the lawyers said.

As for the subpoenaed gifts, the president said Lewinsky could not produce them if she no longer had them, according to the lawyers' account. Mrs. Currie has told investigators that she retrieved a box of gifts from Lewinsky -- including the dress, the brooch and the hat pin -- and subsequently turned the items over to Starr.

Affidavit Includes Denial of Sex

On Jan. 7, a Wednesday, Lewinsky completed an affidavit saying she never had sex with the president, said her lawyer William Ginsburg. The affidavit was not immediately filed with Mrs. Jones' lawyers.

The judge in the case had suggested that testimony be limited to accounts of sexual favors received by Clinton in exchange for government jobs. Lewinsky contended she knew nothing of the sort, Ginsburg said; her affidavit was intended to keep her out of the Jones trial.

Tripp has suggested to lawyers in the case that Lewinsky did not intend to file the affidavit until she had secured a job. That suggestion has not been independently corroborated by Lewinsky or anyone else.

On Jan. 8, Lewinsky had a final job interview at Revlon, and Jordan made telephone calls on her behalf to the company, where he serves as a director. One of those calls went to Revlon's chairman, Ronald O. Perelman. A few days later, Revlon offered Lewinsky a job.

Now events approached critical mass.

On Jan. 12, Tripp made contact with Starr's office, saying that Lewinsky had had an affair with the president and that she, Tripp, had secret tapes to prove it. The same day, Carter told Mrs. Jones' lawyers that Lewinsky had denied any sexual relationship with the president in her affidavit.

On Jan. 13, Tripp, with a tiny tape recorder provided by Starr's office, met Lewinsky for a long lunch, during which Lewinsky is said to have described her conversations about her affidavit with Jordan.

On Jan. 14 or Jan. 15, Lewinsky handed Tripp three pages of "talking points," aimed at persuading Tripp to deny any knowledge of sexual impropriety by Clinton in the Jones lawsuit. It is unclear who wrote the document.

On Jan. 15, Starr's office told the Justice Department about Tripp's accusations. A panel of federal judges authorized Starr to investigate whether Clinton and Jordan had encouraged Lewinsky to lie under oath in her affidavit.

On Jan. 16, a Friday, the case reached an explosive state. The Federal Bureau of Investigation confronted Lewinsky. That day and the next, reporters began asking White House officials pointed questions, including whether the president had tried to influence other people's testimony in Jones vs. Clinton, a former White House official said. News of Starr's expanded investigation had already leaked.

Clinton knew none of this. Nor did he know, as he confronted Mrs. Jones on Jan. 17, that he would be so extensively questioned about Lewinsky. Mrs. Jones' lawyers appeared to know more details about Lewinsky than the president's lawyers had anticipated.

The next morning, Clinton summoned Mrs. Currie to the White House and reviewed with her some of the questions and answers he had given the previous day about Lewinsky, said lawyers familiar with Mrs. Currie's account. The president told her he had never been alone with Lewinsky and that he had resisted her sexual advances, these lawyers said.

If this was an effort at damage control, it failed. The story of Tripp's tapes was already leaking out, and Starr was already aiming his investigation directly at the White House, preparing to summon a parade of aides, including Mrs. Currie, to a grand jury.

On Jan. 21, a Wednesday, the inquiry was national news. That day, Tripp signed an affidavit for Mrs. Jones' lawyers. It said Lewinsky had "revealed to me in detailed conversations that she has had a sexual relationship with President Clinton since November 15, 1995."

If that is so, the president "committed perjury" in his sworn deposition, and "embarked on a very aggressive cover-up campaign" afterward, one of Mrs. Jones' lawyers, Donovan Campbell, said in court papers filed last Thursday.

Those charges are now at the heart of one of the strangest investigations ever carried out against a president of the United States.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/020998clinton-recap.html

__________________________________________________

Boy that Vernon Jordan sure is a helpful so and so to one, and apparently only one, intern :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

and another :wavey:

Monday, Feb. 9, 1998
Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock...
Monica Lewinsky's past 32 months: White House glamour, ill-advised friendships, mysterious phone calls, a supercharged job hunt and too many lawyers
By DAVID VAN BIEMA

1995

--MAY Lewinsky graduates Lewis & Clark College

--JUNE Lewinsky leaves for unpaid White House internship; allegedly jokes to Andrew Bleiler (who claims to have been a longtime lover), "I'm going to the White House to get my presidential knee pads"

--NOVEMBER-DECEMBER Meets Clinton at White House party. If her alleged statements on tape are true, she wears revealing outfit, they flirt, and (she claims) they commence extended affair. Is hired as paid White House staff member

1996

--APRIL Lewinsky shipped to Pentagon. Befriends Linda Tripp, an aide in the same office

--NOVEMBER Clinton re-elected. Now famous video captures him hugging beret-clad Lewinsky at reception on White House lawn

1997

--MAY Supreme Court rejects Clinton's request for delay in Paula Jones case

--AUGUST-DECEMBER On the advice of Lucianne Goldberg, Tripp buys recorder and starts taping confidential conversations with Lewinsky. Topic: alleged affair with Clinton

--EARLY OCTOBER Rutherford Institute, funding Jones' suit, receives first of three anonymous phone tips alleging a Lewinsky-Clinton affair

--OCTOBER Lewinsky, restless, seeks new job. She rejects an offer from U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson

--OCTOBER-DECEMBER Lewinsky is referred to Vernon Jordan for job advice. Also, she sends multiple packages to White House from Pentagon

--DEC. 5 Jones' lawyers, acting on the anonymous tips, inform Clinton's lawyers they want to depose Lewinsky

--DEC. 8-10 On Lewinsky's behalf, Jordan makes calls to American Express and the CEO of advertising giant Young & Rubicam. Immediately afterward, Lewinsky sends letter of application to Burson-Marsteller, a Y&R subsidiary

--DEC. 17 Lewinsky receives a call from Thomas Schick, American Express's vice president for corporate affairs; they arrange to meet

--DEC. 18 Her testimony postponed, she interviews at Burson-Marsteller in New York City

--DEC. 23 She interviews at American Express. She is not hired

--DEC. 26 Despite her unclear employment prospects, she leaves Pentagon job

--JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS Tripp, who like Lewinsky has been subpoenaed, tells her she intends to expose the alleged affair. They discuss Tripp's having a fake "foot accident" to avoid testifying. (At some point, a source tells TIME, Lewinsky even offers Tripp a financial interest in an Australian condo she owns if Tripp will keep quiet)

--DEC. 28 Lewinsky meets with Clinton in the White House. Betty Currie, his secretary, joins them, sources say. The New York Times reports that he advises her to explain earlier meetings as visits to see Currie, and urges her to go to New York City

--DEC. 30 Back in New York, Lewinsky takes writing test at Burson-Marsteller, but does badly and sends ungrammatical thank-you note

1998

--JAN. 7 Jordan recommends lawyer Frank Carter to Lewinsky and drives her to Carter's office. Lewinsky signs affidavit in the Jones case reportedly denying an affair with Clinton. But according to the Wall Street Journal...

--JAN. 8-11 ...she refuses to file it until Jordan finds her a job. Jordan calls Revlon, on whose board he sits, and within a week the corporation offers her a New York position

--JAN. 12 Tripp alerts Starr's office to her 20 hours of Lewinsky tapes and alleged Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Tripp alleges that Lewinsky told her Clinton and Jordan urged the ex-intern to lie

--JAN. 13 At the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in suburban Virginia, Tripp guides Lewinsky through the whole history of the alleged affair, as the FBI and Starr's people listen via a wire

--JAN. 14 Driving Tripp home from work, Lewinsky allegedly hands her "talking points" encouraging her to lie under oath

--JAN. 16 Lewinsky meets again with Tripp at the Ritz-Carlton, but is ambushed. Janet Reno and a three-judge panel have expanded Starr's investigation. His men swoop down on Lewinsky. Carter files the affidavit. Lewinsky fires Carter

--JAN. 17 In a six-hour deposition by Jones' lawyer, Clinton denies affair with Lewinsky

--JAN. 21 Story breaks publicly. Lewinsky's new lawyer, William Ginsburg, begins negotiations with Starr on a testimony-for-immunity deal. Clinton denies Lewinsky relationship on TV

--JAN. 29 Judge in Paula Jones case bars Lewinsky-related evidence, which may prevent Starr from pursuing some perjury charges

--JAN. 30 Tripp releases statement that she listened to Lewinsky's side of a phone conversation with Clinton and saw presents he gave her. Ginsburg denies Tripp's claims. He speculates that Starr may seek a court order to compel Lewinsky's testimony

--Written by David Van Biema

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,987816,00.html

_____________________________________________________________

Boy, a job at the UN - a job a Revlon - interviews at all those big companies for which she demonstrated and in fact had a total lack of qualification (as tested) - a stained dress - a BS affidavit - the Pres. personal lawyer - the timing - HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM that Lewisky sure looks like an innocent :rolleyes:

I mean I certainly would forget that I had a dress with the President's cum all over it and I sure would have just happened to cart that dress home and leave it there uncleaned for that long of a time because I just thought it didn't matter :laugh: :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

you can spin all you want, Ive maintained all along that CLINTON didnt get Monica that job and none of the articles you've posted indicated otherwise. some of his assistants apparently helped but there is not a shred of evidence that CLINTON got her that job. In fact, Monica made very plain that after the affair was exposed, Clinton distanced himself from her very completely and she was quite hurt about it (not that she didnt understand....) You may not like her, but I dont have a problem with her OR her credibility. I dont find it surprising that she got a job so quickly, she obviously couldnt stay at the White House any longer :shrug:

also, you didnt ask a yes or no question, you made an erroneous assumption that I would object if a Republican had sex with a young person, and I corrected you and told you that at NO time have I ever registered disapproval of any adult consensual sex. only later in your post did you ask your "yes or no" question, and again, I have no opinions on sexual relations between consenting adults. never have, never will. Im not even outraged if there is an extra-marital affair. I figure thats between the man and wife, not the rest of society.

[BlackWidow]

you can spin all you want, Ive maintained all along that CLINTON didnt get Monica that job and none of the articles you've posted indicated otherwise. some of his assistants apparently helped but there is not a shred of evidence that CLINTON got her that job. In fact, Monica made very plain that after the affair was exposed, Clinton distanced himself from her very completely and she was quite hurt about it (not that she didnt understand....) You may not like her, but I dont have a problem with her OR her credibility. I dont find it surprising that she got a job so quickly, she obviously couldnt stay at the White House any longer :shrug:

also, you didnt ask a yes or no question, you made an erroneous assumption that I would object if a Republican had sex with a young person, and I corrected you and told you that at NO time have I ever registered disapproval of any adult consensual sex. only later in your post did you ask your "yes or no" question, and again, I have no opinions on sexual relations between consenting adults. never have, never will. Im not even outraged if there is an extra-marital affair. I figure thats between the man and wife, not the rest of society.

Is it okay..If I have sex with a white republican in office...?:woohoo:

[irishgrl]

Is it okay..If I have sex with a white republican in office...?:woohoo:
whatever floats yer boat, my dear :p

[strandinthewind]

you can spin all you want, Ive maintained all along that CLINTON didnt get Monica that job and none of the articles you've posted indicated otherwise. some of his assistants apparently helped but there is not a shred of evidence that CLINTON got her that job. In fact, Monica made very plain that after the affair was exposed, Clinton distanced himself from her very completely and she was quite hurt about it (not that she didnt understand....) You may not like her, but I dont have a problem with her OR her credibility. I dont find it surprising that she got a job so quickly, she obviously couldnt stay at the White House any longer :shrug:

""I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time -- never. These allegations are false."


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Oh why not post one more just for fun - reminds me of the bog boobed secretary who can't type :laugh:


__________________________________________

Was Career Help Intended to Silence Lewinsky?

By Amy Goldstein and John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, January 28, 1998; Page A19

As independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr begins presenting evidence to the grand jury about the Monica Lewinsky controversy, he will try to resolve a crucial question: Was the help Lewinsky received from President Clinton's aides and friends in finding a new job an attempt to silence a potentially troublesome witness -- or merely an odd string of coincidences?

On Monday, Clinton glowered and shook his finger at a thicket of television cameras as he insisted, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time -- never. These allegations are false."

Emphatic as his denial was, Clinton did not seek to address a set of undisputed facts: Starting last October, at the time of a significant turning point in the sexual harassment lawsuit of Paula Jones, 24-year-old Lewinsky was benefiting from a strong career boost not available to most junior government employees.

The effort to land Lewinsky a job in New York began the same month that Jones's lawyers first received several anonymous tips that Lewinsky may have had a sexual relationship with the president, sources said. Also in October, Lewinsky's friend and Pentagon colleague Linda R. Tripp, who had begun secretly taping conversations with Lewinsky some weeks earlier, was subpoenaed by Jones's lawyers.

It remains unclear exactly when the White House -- or Lewinsky, for that matter -- found out that the young woman was within the sights of Jones's attorneys and that she could cause enormous political damage to a president she apparently adored. But a key question for Starr is whether the career help offered to Lewinsky was connected with an attempt to sway her testimony in the Jones case.

Whatever investigators conclude, it is clear that the past four months represent the second time in Lewinsky's relatively brief stint in Washington that White House officials took unusual steps to boost her fledgling career.

Lewinsky had been working in the White House for less than a year, first as an intern and then as a legislative affairs aide, when she was steered toward a public affairs position at the Pentagon for which she had little experience.

Evelyn S. Lieberman, deputy chief of staff at the time, was the official who decided Lewinsky should leave the White House. The young woman displayed "inappropriate and immature behavior," Lieberman, now director of Voice of America, said through a White House spokesman this week.

Lewinsky's co-workers at the time said that she had not mastered her duties as a staff assistant in the White House's legislative affairs office.

"She couldn't write the letters by herself," said one former White House employee who worked near her. "She was making mistakes, having misspellings, not calling people 'chairmen' when they were chairmen," he recalled. "She would get very frustrated or flustered over the simplest complication in her job. The computer would freeze up and it would be the end of her life."

Even so, Lewinsky's name was the only one the White House forwarded to the Defense Department when Pentagon officials called during the first week of April 1996 to say they had an opening for a confidential assistant in the public affairs office -- a job that came with top-secret clearance.

The Pentagon's top spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, said that Lewinsky had less experience than previous occupants of the job. But he said he decided to hire her anyway because he wanted a younger person who might be better able to endure the job's grueling hours and menial tasks.

Lewinsky's skills -- particularly her typing abilities -- were unpolished when she arrived at the Pentagon, her co-workers there said, but she worked diligently and soon fit into her new office.

Eighteen months later, Lewinsky was, once again, being furnished with career help directly from the White House. This time, the assistance was even more remarkable, because it reached outside Washington and -- in three cases -- outside the government entirely.

And this time, the assistance took place as the young woman was being drawn unwittingly into the heart of Jones's efforts to prove her sexual harassment charges against the president.

Lewinsky did not know at the time that Tripp, her 48-year-old friend and colleague at the Pentagon, had begun secret recordings of her account of an alleged affair with the president. She also did not know that Tripp was already considering going public with Lewinsky's alleged affair, meeting in October with her book agent Lucianne Goldberg and a Newsweek reporter to tell them what Lewinsky said on the tapes about Clinton.

And it is unclear whether Lewinsky knew that Tripp had received her October subpoena from Jones's attorneys.

Nevertheless, it was at that very time that the former intern benefited from the first in a rapid series of high-level interventions aimed at finding her a new job in New York. That intervention came first in the form of an interview for a low-level public affairs post at the United Nations.

One source said yesterday that Lewinsky was referred to the staff of Bill Richardson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, sometime in October by John D. Podesta, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Betty Currie, one of Clinton's two personal secretaries.

The source said Richardson and his chief of staff, Rebecca Cooper, met with Lewinsky for breakfast one morning in late October at the Watergate, where she lives and where he typically stays when in Washington. She was offered a job, but turned it down, saying she preferred to switch to the private sector.

On Nov. 4, Lewinsky, who colleagues said had talked for some time of leaving the Pentagon, informed her bosses that she intended to resign. She told them "her mother had moved to New York and she wanted to be near her," according to a Pentagon official.

It was that same month, Newsweek magazine has reported, that Lewinsky first paid a visit to Clinton's close friend, Washington lawyer Vernon E. Jordan Jr., on Currie's advice. Before the end of the year, Jordan would open the doors to three more job prospects.

Meanwhile, Lewinsky was drawn into the Jones case in early December. As long ago as the summer of 1997, Lewinsky's taped conversations with Tripp suggest, she had been worried that her alleged relationship with the president would surface in the Jones case. During the recorded conversation, she told Tripp that she had expressed her fears directly to Clinton, and that Clinton told her the lawyers would never find out, according to the tapes.

But about Dec. 5, Jones's lawyers informed Clinton's legal team that they intended to summon Lewinsky as a witness, sources said. On Dec. 17, Lewinsky received her subpoena in the Jones case. By the time she left her Pentagon position nine days later, Lewinsky's job search was in full swing.

According to Michael O'Neill, a spokesman for American Express, the head of the company's human resources department received a call on Dec. 10 or 11 from Jordan, who sits on the company's board of directors. Jordan said the department could expect to receive an application from a job candidate that he was recommending.

Lewinsky's resume arrived there on Dec. 11. She telephoned a few days later to arrange for an interview and her application was forwarded to Thomas Schick, executive vice president for American Express's corporate affairs and communications, who interviewed her in Washington on Dec. 23.

During the interview, O'Neill said, Schick told her the company had no opening for which she was qualified.

Meanwhile, Jordan also had telephoned Young & Rubicam Inc., the parent company for Burson-Marsteller, the large New York-based public relations firm. Jordan is a friend of Young & Rubicam's chief executive officer, Peter Georgescu. A Young & Rubicam official "kicked it down and said, 'Hey could you look at this person,' " a source at Burson said yesterday.

Lewinsky had two interviews there -- one in mid-December, and the other on Dec. 30. She was not offered a job.

Her third corporate job opportunity materialized at Revlon, the cosmetics manufacturer. Jordan, a director of the company's parent corporation, contacted an official there in December on behalf of Lewinsky, who interviewed her for a public affairs job the same day as her second interview at Burson and the same week she visited Clinton in the White House's West Wing, according to a knowledgeable source. Revlon offered her a job this month, but rescinded it after Lewinsky became embroiled in the Clinton controversy.

Jordan said last week that the career help was standard practice for him. And despite the criticism some White House colleagues have leveled at Lewinsky's job performance, the president's friend praised the woman he had tried to assist.

"I was pleased to be helpful to Ms. Lewinsky, whose drive, ambition and personality were impressive," Jordan said.

Staff writers Lorraine Adams, Peter Baker, John M. Goshko and Dana Priest contributed to this report.


© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/lewinsky012898.htm

[strandinthewind]

The Lewinsky Affidavit

Released on Friday, March 13, 1998

Following is the full text of Monica S. Lewinsky's affidavit, signed on Jan. 7, 1998, and submitted to lawyers for Paula Jones on Jan. 16. The statement was one of several documents made public by Jones's lawyers on March 13 as part of their opposition to a motion by Clinton's lawyers to dismiss the case.

Attorneys for Jones refered to Lewinsky as a "Jane Doe".

1. My name is Jane Doe # . I am 24 years old and I currently reside at 700 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037.

2. On December 19, 1997, I was served with a subpoena from the plaintiff to give a deposition and to produce documents in the lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones against President William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson.

3. I can not fathom any reason that the plaintiff would seek information from me for her case.

4. I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the events she alleges occurred at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991 or any other information concerning any of the allegations in her case.

5. I worked at the White House in the summer of 1995 as a White House intern. Beginning in December, 1995, I worked in the Office of Legislative Affairs as a staff assistant for correspondence. In April, 1996, I accepted a job as assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Defense. I maintained that job until December 26, 1997. I am currently unemployed but seeking a new job.

6. In the course of my employment at the White House I met President Clinton several times. I also saw the President at a number of social functions held at the White House. When I worked as an intern, he appeared at occasional functions attended by me and several other interns. The correspondence I drafted while I worked at the Office of Legislative Affairs was seen and edited by supervisors who either had the President's signature affixed by mechanism or, I believe, had the President sign the correspondence itself.

7. I have the utmost respect for the President who has always behaved appropriately in my presence.

8. I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not know of any other person who had a sexual relationship with the President, was offered employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, or was denied employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw the President after I left employment at the White House in April, 1996, were official receptions, formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. There were other people present on those occasions.

9. Since I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations made by Paula Jones or lead to possible admissible evidence in this case, I asked my attorney to provide this affidavit to plaintiff's counsel. Requiring my disposition in this matter would cause disruption to my life, especially since I am looking for employment, unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

(signed)
Monica S. Lewinsky

© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/lewinskyaffidavit.htm

[irishgrl]

""I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time -- never. These allegations are false."


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I thought we were talking about Monica? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I thought we were talking about Monica? :shrug:

With so many lying about so much - who can keep track :laugh: