Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alas Babylon!
Newt didn’t go after Clinton’s affair with Monica. He went after a President that lied under oath and who conspired to deprive another citizen of her day in court. There is a huge difference.
22 posted on 06/21/2007 11:14:38 AM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: jwparkerjr
Newt didn’t go after Clinton’s affair with Monica.

He was the leader of the Republicans at that time, and let the Clintonistas and Dems get away with framing it about sex. He should have brought up the real charge of TREASON, which was what he had with the Riady's arranging People's Republic of China Liberation Army money for the president's reelection, kickbacks from cronies at Loral so they could sell advanced missile technology to a known enemy of the USA, shutting of Utah's access to low sulfer coal thus allowing the Lippo group sole possesor of world class low sulfer coal, etc, etc, etc.

All Newt could do was b!tch about where he sat on USAF 1. He could have grown a pair as the leader of the House and stopped the treason when he had a chance.

I do agree that the charges they finally brought against Clinton were serious--lying under oath and obstruction of justice--but it could have been so much more had the REAL crimes been brought up.

27 posted on 06/21/2007 1:53:47 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson