[Jeff Chandler]

If there is no video, his accusers are toast. The media will chew them up and spit them out.

[Ohioan from Florida]

You don't need video as proof that he took them improperly. The fact that they were in his possesion and he returned them is evidence that he took them. He has admitted taking them.

However, I will agree that the liberal media will do everything in their power to spin this so that he will get off as lightly as possible - "no harm, no foul" so to speak.

[Liz]

Accusers are toast without video?

Balderdash.


This Pantload himself admitted to the crime. It's very unusual for a Clintonoid to admit to wrongdoing so they must have this sucker cornered like a rat in a trap.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Sorry, the facts are not with you on this one. The undeniable fact is that he committed a crime on multiple occasions. No one disputes this fact. His defense has been one of motive. However, the cold hard fact is that he committed a crime on multiple occasions and he will probably be doing jail time.

[cyncooper]

If there is no video, his accusers are toast. The media will chew them up and spit them out.

He's already admitted it.

"Knowingly" on some, "inadvertantly" on the docs that would carry the most serious charges for removing.

[Hildy]

What are you talking about, he's already admitted it.

[aruanan]

If there is no video, his accusers are toast. The media will chew them up and spit them out.

Uh huh. And how often is someone convicted of a crime of which there is no video?