"It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge. Bush needs to answer the charges now."
"It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge. Bush needs to answer the charges now."
And the answer is:
If there were any truth to the charges fake documents would not be necessary. When you know you have the truth on your side, there is no need to stoop to deception.
"It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge. Bush needs to answer the charges now."
LOL. Beat me to it.
-"It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge. Bush needs to answer the charges now."-
That seems to be the status quo among liberals, which is "the ends justify the means".
A similar underhanded situation occurred two years ago. And just last month the court ruled against our liberal WA state congressman "Bagdad" Jim McDermott. As you may recall, "Bagdad" Jim illegally obtained an audio tape of Newt Gingrich, who was discussing a private conversation over a cell phone. Newt lost his position over an ethics violation despite the way the evidence was illegally attained. The perpetrator, Jim has yet to lose his job since he represents a congressional district which is grossly liberal in Seattle. To his constituents, its possible Jim is more popular for his misdeeds. Simply put, Seattle is a liberal bastion and has little regard for law if and when it means pushing their liberal agenda.
Similarly, Dan Rather has ridden a liberal agenda his entire career. Also, He has abused his position.
It's not Bush who needs to answer to charges, Rather its Blather who should.
Where is Donald Trump when you need him! He needs to say what others will not say, "Dan, you're fired!" ;)