From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:09:59 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Subject: "Blowjobs for Jobs"   (Re: Sucking Sound...)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800b0ef0154981a@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03102803b0eff5c16eea@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



AP, Washington.  President Clinton today announced his "Blowjobs for Jobs"
program, open to young interns, wealthy socialites, and Hollywood
actresses. Clinton denied that this would be either improper behavior,
adultery, or abuse of his official powers. "Hell, it ain't adultery, as
Hillary would rather have me gettin' my oil changed in the Oval Office
bathroom than do it herself, and it ain't abuse, cuz that's why I'm havin'
these young thangs do it instead of it doin' it myself. I ain't no prevert."
...


At 11:35 AM -0800 1/24/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Tim is right to bring this up. It will have immense impact on the issues
>the cypherpunks care about. How can Clinton talk about policy proposals
>(crypto, Net-taxes, etc.) when his presidency is spiraling away?

Well, actually it was Jonathan Wienke who brought it up...I just commented
on it.

I suppose one reason I hadn't attempted to write anything on it is that
there was just SO MUCH STUFF on it. New details are emerging hourly, and we
haven't even heard what's on the 20 hours of tape.

Yes, it's a massively covered story. Is it overcovered? I don't think so.
After all, the election campaign will generate 15 minutes of news coverage
on the network news shows each and every day for almost 10 months, so why
not this level of coverage for what looks to be the end of Clinton's
Presidency? (With all that that implies for further loss of confidence in
the democratic system (yay!).)

There are some who are steadfastly saying "But Clinton has denied these
charges." and "Let's wait until all the details come out."

These folks appear to be either in denial or are just going through the
motions. A vast amount of interesting evidence is accumulating, giving
support to various serious charges. If they are roughly as we are hearing,
modulo some possibly miscommunicated details, then Clinton and others are
in deep shit.

(Perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of
justice, and possibly offering Lewinsky and others jobs if they'll lie,
itself a misuse of office.)

I could go on, mentioning all the various news items.

(I get CNN, CNBC, all the usual networks, MSNBC, Fox News, and so on, so
there is a vast amount of news and analysis I hear.)

>At the daily press briefing yesterday, McCurry tried to talk about some
>welfare plan or something. Whatever. Doesn't matter what it was; I don't
>remember -- point is you don't see it on the front page of newspapers today.

I watched this live. McCurry is clearly not being informed on details.
(Which he's probably just as happy about, as elsewise he could be
subpoenaed as a material witness.)

>Note the grand jury is set to meet next Tues, not coincidentally, the day
>of the SoUA. A week ago everyone was scrambling to find out what was going
>to be in it. Nobody cares anymore. I may sit in on it in the press gallery
>just to see the dynamic and hear the catcalls.

It is a feeding frenzy, that much is for sure. But it's having the effect
of triggering more revelations...like the oral sex. phone sex, four other
women, etc. revelations.

(Hey, when those tapes of Clinton having phone sex with Lewinsky come
out...no pun intended...those will be heady times, snicker snicker.)



>Where I work, most of the folks are liberals. Before this week, they lent
>scant credence to Paula Jones etc. -- the previous Bimbo Eruptions. This
>time is different. This time there is serious talk of impeachment: what the
>legal standards are, what the Republicans are doing on the Hill, what this
>means for Gore.
>
>This time, it's for real.
Yep. He's going down.

(No pun intended, as it appears the "servicing" of him in the White House
was strictly in the other direction. Clinton and his "Blowjobs for Jobs"
program.)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."