SS. Those "allegations were from clinton sycophants.
just as these are currently allegations.
SS. These are backed by evidence. As the clintons sycophants were not.
From pressuring witnesses to perjure themselves, to conflicts of interest including personal and political business.
SS. Yes that was what the Clintons were found guilty of!
The best one was the Rutherford Institute hijacking the Paula Jones suit which was not doing well, handing it to Starr, and then Scaife (Rutherford's main financier and rabid Clinton hater) setting up a chair at Pepperdine for Starr when he's done with the case.
SS.Nothing ILEGAL THERE! BTW Being a Clinotn hater is a GOOD thing. And if you think not, as evident by you responses, you don't belong here!
Quite clearly, they were. However, they did not for some reason rise to the level required for removal of an independent counsel, although other other ICs have been disqualified in the first place for less.
Yes that was what the Clintons were found guilty of!
Uh, only one was found guilty of perjury. The other was exonerated (damn!). Of course, him being guilty lets Starr off the hook, right? The ends justify the means?
SS.Nothing ILEGAL THERE!
Highly unethical (coming from a supposedly super-ethical man like Starr), and such conflicts of interest would normally disqualify someone from such a position.
Being a Clinotn hater is a GOOD thing. And if you think not, as evident by you responses, you don't belong here!
Hate is bad. Disagreement and working in opposition is good.