HILLARY DOESN'T RECALL, DOESN'T REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOESN'T BELIEVE...

doug from upland, Free Republic ^ | 4.24.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Telling document precisely because of the "I do not recalls."
ping

[Gordongekko909]

I seem to remember (heh) Rush having a song about this. The Frogman wrote it, needless to say. It was called "I can't remember" or something... I forgot.

[Mia T]

ping

[doug from upland]

Yep, and she is setting up her own daughter for perjury.

[stevestras]

Thanks.

If it wasn't for you and freerepublic, I wouldn't even know about this.

[bmwcyle]

The "Smartest woman" plays dumb.

[Mia T]

 

The bottom line is this paradox: In order for hillary clinton to have any chance of winning elections, she must all but vanish from the public stage.⁵

So when hillary-the-person has a problem, for example, she stays hidden and in her place dispatches her prevaricators to spin us silly. Harold Wolfson is the current model. 

If the problem has already taken root, she plants false news stories about it. (Missus clinton's sorry sock-puppet status falls into this category.) ⁶

It is only when her power, treasure or freedom appears in imminent danger does she deign⁷ to put the lie¹⁰ in our face herself.⁸

SEX, LIES AND SOCK PUPPETS:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₄
by Mia T, 3.22.06

[Mia T]

That she is. She is despicable. Remember hillary's 9/11 chelsea lie?

 

 

GEFILTE FISHY   by Mia T     The clintons: Meshuga, tref, tsuris. Shopworn shtick, schmaltz, tsimmes. Ganef, schlemiel, schlimazel. A crooked putz with a big schnozzle.   Nudnik, nebbish, tummler. Two chachkas on Geraldo's mantle, two schnorrers. Kibitzer, kvetch with chutzpah. Yenta, spieler, two stuffed kishkas.

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Gail Wynand]

A glaring legal omission appears on the face of the tendered declaration. An omission, the absence of which amounts to and implied but inescapable admission/assertion of a prior history of unlawful/illegal conduct.

A Declaration requires not only that the witness state facts known to her to be true, but that she also state the basis upon which such facts could be known to her, i.e., how she was in a position to have heard, seen, thought, felt, or otherwise perceived the asserted fact.

The Declarant, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, states "she believes" she would have recalled what was alleged to have been discussed, had it in fact been discussed, despite an admitted, inability to recall what was actually discussed, presumably because the Declarant, correctly apprehends that had the discussion occurred as alleged, she would have been enaging in illegal acts. The only possible basis, however, for the Declarent "believing" she would have remembered such discussions, had they in fact occurred, is that she has prior experience committing illegal acts and based on that experience, she knows she tends not to forget such conduct at the same rate of mental deterioration as casual conduct not amounting to an illegal or wrongful act.

Thus, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appears to be asserting, under oath, that she knows from prior experience that when she commits crimes of this magnitude, she remembers such facts, notwithstanding any loss of memory as to concurrent details not rising to the level of such criminal/unlawful activity.

[Mia T]

Actually, 'playing' dumb... and mute... is a not very bright person's best cover.

 

Hillary-the-person isn't running. The idea of hillary is, the idea of hillary as put out on a daily basis by all manner of proxy, from simple spinner to elaborate Hollywood production.¹

QUESTION: When was the last time you observed "the smartest woman in the world"² partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. Hillary-the-person answers to no one.³

Hillary-the-person never shows her face. Hillary-the-person never talks. Part of the reason is substance-- or more precisely, the lack of it: The clintons are a truly banal bunch. But, as the husband amply demonstrates, banality, in and of itself, is not a nonstarter if you have a semblance of style. But, sadly, missus clinton doesn't have that, either.

The upshot of all this vacuity are positive numbers for hillary (such as they are) that are inversely related to appearance frequency, and, more specifically, inversely related to the following... variables....

SEX, LIES AND SOCK PUPPETS:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₄
by Mia T, 3.22.06

[Mia T]

Excellent!

[prophetic]

Imho, Hitlery is the living embodiment of the Biblical Jezebel in every sense of the name.

The biblical Jezebel was noted for lying, stealing, murder, witchcraft and doing everything her evil heart desired WITH IMPUNITY with everyone cowering in fear around her lest they too be destroyed.

At one point she (actually the powerful demonic powers behind her) has the great prophet Elijah running for his life until the Lord stepped in to encourage him.

[Brian Allen]

My Dearest Mia

<< A glaring legal omission appears on the face of the tendered declaration. An omission, the absence of which amounts to and implied but inescapable admission/assertion of a prior history of unlawful/illegal conduct.

A Declaration requires not only that the witness state facts known to her to be true, but that she also state the basis upon which such facts could be known to her, i.e., how she was in a position to have heard, seen, thought, felt, or otherwise perceived the asserted fact.

The Declarant, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, states "she believes" she would have recalled what was alleged to have been discussed, had it in fact been discussed, despite an admitted, inability to recall what was actually discussed, presumably because the Declarant, correctly apprehends that had the discussion occurred as alleged, she would have been enaging in illegal acts. The only possible basis, however, for the Declarent "believing" she would have remembered such discussions, had they in fact occurred, is that she has prior experience committing illegal acts and based on that experience, she knows she tends not to forget such conduct at the same rate of mental deterioration as casual conduct not amounting to an illegal or wrongful act.

Thus, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appears to be asserting, under oath, that she knows from prior experience that when she commits crimes of this magnitude, she remembers such facts, notwithstanding any loss of memory as to concurrent details not rising to the level of such criminal/unlawful activity. >>

[HeHeHe .... ]

What he said!

Blessings - Brian

[Don Carlos]

"Up your dosage."

Up your output chute, Simian CIC, member since 04/24/2006.

[darkangel82]

hmmm...I see little puffs of smoke.

[darkwing104]

If you can do better then you are more than welcome to post your own thread....

[darkangel82]

LOL! Zot.