From a UWSA Mail List post:

From d.wiesner@genie.geis.com Mon Apr 6 09:18:21 1998
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 98 06:16:00 GMT
From: d.wiesner@genie.geis.com
Reply-To: uwsa@uwsa.com
To: uwsa@uwsa.com
Subject: [UWSA] Re: Clearing up Paula Jones

This has turned into quite a different discussion from my original post.

I used to be deeply involved in the hemophiliac AIDS issue here and in Japan. At one point, I listened as one of the chief hemophiliac activists told me he had documents showing that the chief FDA regulator had participated along with the blood products companies in covering up evidence that they had been using the blood of prisoners in Louisiana to make clotting factor concentrate in violation of FDA rules.

I asked him if he was going to release the documents to Congress and he said he wasn't. The reason was that he was using them as bargaining chips over the issue of compensation. The deal was that he would let the regulators and company presidents stay out of jail in exchange for a good settlement for the class of plaintiffs.

I thought long and hard about it, and I decided in the end that his position had some merit. His heart told him that jail for the murderers was the honest course, but the practical course was to bag the documents.

I look at the Starr investigation of Foster, and it is everything Brad says it is, mainly a whitewash. A cursory examination of Foster's clients tells you he was up to his eyeballs dealing with the Bush administration before he ever went to Washington. Does Starr need the GOP? Of course, since without them he would have no one except his judges to keep him action.

Who else does Starr need? The FBI. The Independent Counsel law essentially created a judicial prosecutor with an investigative entitlement, but it didn't allow him to set up his own alternative to the FBI. If I were in his shoes and I found the FBI obstructing me on the Foster investigation, it would put me in a mighty bind. I would have to come to a decision whether half a loaf was better than none.

Note that Richard Mellon Scaife offered Starr a position at Pepperdine before he wrapped up the Foster investigation. Could it have been one of those offers Starr couldn't refuse? Public opinion later forced Starr to stay on the job, but still he may have decided that the best strategy was to let this branch of the investigation go so he could continue the rest.

One of the most telling comments ever made in the whole investigation into Arkansas was Richard Ben Veniste's statement to the Wall Street Journal that those who wanted to play rough should remember that he was the lawyer who delivered Barry Seal to the Bush DEA. The implication was that he knew where all the bodies were buried at Mena -- by a GOP administration. Of course, Mena was another Starr investigation that went nowhere. Was Starr wrong to take the hint? Maybe not, if it meant losing GOP support.

Sometimes it gets really ugly in the real world. To catch a thief, you have to set a thief. I go along with Skip that the GOP is the second worst party in the U.S. However, I am betting on the GOP in this less than perfect world. I am also making contingency plans to move to Vancouver if everything goes down in flames.

Dave

===================================================================
uwsa@uwsa.com is an unmoderated mail list to discuss general government topics.
  To join or leave this list  send mail to majordomo@uwsa.com
TO:	majordomo@uwsa.com
Subject:
----------------------------------------
(un)subscribe uwsa
Visit our world wide web site at  http://www.uwsa.com
Support UWSA.COM  at http://www.uwsa.com/UWSAintro.html

From Charlee823@aol.com Mon Apr 6 12:07:58 1998
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:00:25 EDT
From: Charlee823
Reply-To: uwsa@uwsa.com
To: uwsa@uwsa.com
Subject: Re: [UWSA] Is that all you need - WP Poll Results

I know we have all heard about as much Paula Jones as we can handle. But I wanted to share with everyone something that happened to me on the night of the judge's ruling. It was about 11:30 PM. I was too upset to sleep and I was surfing. I found the AOL News Poll and it invited me to vote on my opinion of the ruling.

At the time I participated, the poll figures were about 50-50. Obviously, I was disappointed in the results but I thought I would just monitor them for a while. A few minutes before midnight, I noticed a very strange thing happening. The figures started to change in leaps of between .2% and .6%. In the next five minutes it went from 50-50 to 60-40. At the time there were about 22,000 respondents. Each time it changed the number of respondents was increasing by about 200. To have that much of an effect on the percentages, it would have to have meant that just about 100% of new respondents were voting in support of the judge's decision. It would make no sense that if everyone who voted up to 11:30 were divided in half, why would all respondents at midnight now be voting one-sided. The next morning the news said that the vote was 70-30 in support of the decision.

It so bothered me that the following day I posted a notice on the AOL message board and was pleased to hear from another individual that saw the very same thing I did.

I have suspected for years that the polls were fixed but, until now I've not had proof. We are not the minority.....we ARE........ the SILENCED MAJORITY. Please share my story with everyone you know. We have to get the word out.

Thank you,

Charlee