To: The Duke
$500,000 in bullshit legal fees to defend from our totally corrupt legal system could break anyone. Those who hounded this great leader from office deserve to rot in hell - as they most certainly will.
Two observations...
1) The Clintons had legal fees BIGGER than that and they didn't break.
2) If Sarah Palin had that great a support, where are the people who would have help her with her legal fees the same way the Clintons had their help ?
To: SeekAndFind
Team President Clinton perhaps isn't the gold standard that we should be comparing our own politicians to.
Also, raising money is probably a bit easier for a U.S. President than an Alaskan Governor. The Clintons became very wealthy in office. What they could weather financially in Washington would have crushed them back in Arkansas.
175 posted on
07/03/2009 6:48:59 PM PDT by
Steel Wolf
(Oh, well. Back to the drawing board....)
To: SeekAndFind
1) The Clintons had legal fees BIGGER than that and they didn't break. 2) If Sarah Palin had that great a support, where are the people who would have help her with her legal fees the same way the Clintons had their help ?
Clinton was president of the USA. Palin was governor of Alaska. Big difference.
Clinton had all the money he could steal. Palin is honest. A bigger difference.
176 posted on
07/03/2009 6:49:23 PM PDT by
okie01
(THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
To: SeekAndFind
1) The Clintons had legal fees BIGGER than that and they didn't break. The Clintons had support from their party, which I'm sure opened *plenty* of doors for financial support. Palin's support was from cash-strapped conservatives who have to count every dollar.
I know I'm one of those conservatives who is now very much ashamed of himself, and I most certainly will now be donating what I can to her legal defense fund.
287 posted on
07/03/2009 9:49:25 PM PDT by
The Duke
("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democrat Party?")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson