Replies

"They problem with Clinton's pronunciation is that he did have relations with "that woman". Are you saying that ultimtely Rush will have to also admit to his charges. If such is the case, then why not open up now as he advised Clinton?"

This really isn't that hard.

I was advised by the poster ......[ with me? ] ....... that all he needed to believe he is innocent was for Rush to publicly state that he did not do it. .......[ still here? ] ...... I said Clinton stated that he did not have sex with Monica ...... [ we're almost home ] ....... My refernce to that means Just because a person denies an accusation does not mean they are innocent!

Rush has not denied anything and has kept quiet. {AS HE SHOULD HAVE DONE}

I believe Rush will be vindicated, so you know where I am on this.

The point is the posters premise was bogus.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say here.

Follow my beginning post [ #25 I think], and follow them through. It should become clear.

If it isn't I have not layed it out well enough.

I've read through this whole thread. I understand your position. The problem with Clinton is most of us felt he was lying and it was proven. Using your assumption of vindication, Rush can say the same thing. Those who chose to believe him will and those who chose not to won't. HOWEVER, like Clinton, this will come out with him either being vindicated or not.

For now what does he have to lose? Those who believe he's done something wrong believe it, those who don't believe it don't. He's in the same situation, except that if he makes a clear statement of innocense and is vindicated as you claim he will be, then he's taken the moral high ground with absolute certainty of his position. If he plays legal manuevers and obtains legal vindication, then he only plays into the hands of those who say that he bought justice.