Posted on 01/20/2002 6:25:38 PM PST by Gemflint
1.8 MILLION CLINTON WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS FINALLY FOUND!
(Washington, DC) - Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, said today that the government, in a court filing January 9, 2002, has admitted that it found 1,844,242 e-mail from the Clinton-Gore White House. This e-mail has never been searched in response to subpoenas and documents requests from Judicial Watch, Congress, and independent counsels. The e-mail were restored at a cost to taxpayers thus far of $12,066,346. The e-mail, which is in the custody of the National Archives, must now be searched pursuant to court orders.
Judicial Watch, which is prosecuting the Filegate $90 million class action lawsuit on behalf of those whose FBI files were misused by the Clinton White House, first exposed the e-mail scandal in early 2000 through its client Sheryl Hall, a former top computer official at the Clinton White House, who testified that incriminating e-mail concerning virtually all the Clinton-Gore scandals had never been produced as they should have in response to document requests and subpoenas. Another Judicial Watch client, former White House computer contractor Betty Lambuth, also testified (along with others) that high-level White House officials threatened Northrop Grumman White House computer contractors to keep quiet about the hidden e-mail or face jail and firing. These threats occurred in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal. The scandal was the subject of a months-long evidentiary hearing that included the testimony of the late Charles Ruff, John Podesta, and Cheryl Mills. The court is in now considering whether to commence criminal contempt proceedings. A decision is expected soon.
“We are confident that the e-mail contains a treasure trove of information concerning Filegate, Chinagate, and, yes, even Enrongate. Any incriminating e-mail will be part of renewed Judicial Watch efforts to put the Clintons in jail,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
Email #2 - I need spome fries. - Bill
Email #3 - I need some pizza and fries. - Bill
Email #4 - Do we have chicken wings today? Bill
Email #5 - Uh, Stephanopolus is gay? OK - Bill
They likely go on like this until # 1,844,242 which is:
Gonna need another moving van - Bill.
I see you graduated from the Goebbels-Begala School of Propaganda and Disinformation. Funny how you accuse others of lies and ad hominem attacks, which is what you do in every one of your posts.
You claim I didn't ask you for sources. That is a BIG LIE.
To: BeAChooser; Howlin
BAC: True, but don't you think Larry might also have risked his life "just a little" when he . . . [snip]
WW: Magnanimous of Judicial Watch staffers to concede that our Special Forces are risking their lives in Afghanistan. But comparing Larry's situation to theirs is a tad ridiculous, dont'cha think? At worst, he's at risk of accidentally stapling his thumb to one of his pleadings or getting carpal tunnel when he endorses the checks.
BAC: He was as big a thorn as Senator Inhofe and the propellor came off his private plane while he was flying it to a meeting requested by Clinton.
WW: I remember the propellor coming off Inhofe's private plane. I DO NOT remember it happening while he was flying to a meeting called by Clinton. Do you have a source for that or did you simply make that part up?
BTW, I agree with Howlin except for the part about Larry being a Clinton operative. I've narrowed it down to: (a) Clinton operative, (b) incompetent attorney or (c) sleazy con artist milking gullible donors for millions, or (d) All of the above.
48 posted on 12/5/01 11:11 AM Eastern by William Wallace
You then posted an AP article which simply said Inhofe was flying his private plane to meet Clinton. Nothing about a meeting called by Clinton. You simply made that part up to insinuate that Clinton arranged to have Inhofe bumped off. When confronted with this, you tried to pretend the article said something it didn't say. Furthermore, the accident involving Inhofe's plane was investigated by the NTSB and a report was issued, which explained the accident resulted from an installation error -- not sabotage.
If you want to know why people don't waste time on your posts, this is why. You forced others to waste considerable amounts of time looking for the information to refute your lies. Fool me once, etc.
Your claim that I refuse to discuss the Ron Brown case is another BIG LIE. I researched the case and pointed out a number of problems with your 6,500 word screed on the subject. I told you exactly what I thought of your "evidence" and explained why you had failed to establish a plausible scenario under which he was murdered. Your response was to bombard me with a farrago of irrelevant minutiae, preposterous inferences and logical fallacies. For example, your ridiculous claim that the government bought the silence of the crash victims' families. The investigation explained the mistakes the pilots made which resulted in the crash. It never occurred to you that what you call hush money (with no evidence whatsoever) happens in 99% of accident cases in which there is evidence of liability. It's called a settlement, but instead of going with the simplest and best explanation, you prefer to smear the reputation of hundreds of people by calling it hush money -- implying that there was foul play, that they knew it and took money to keep quiet. Hundreds of people KNOW that 38 people, including their relatives, were MURDERED, and every single one agreed to remain silent in exchange for CASH! The scenario is patently ridiculous, since if even one person talks the cover is blown and no one can guarantee that NO ONE will talk. It boggles the mind how utterly foolish someone must be to think a scenario like this is remotely plausible, never mind how utterly repellant and cynical to think HUNDREDS of people could be bought off in a case involving the murder of their families.
Your claim that you refuted my post is another BIG LIE. The fact is you have yet to provide a plausible explanation consistent with established facts as to when Ron Brown was shot. Imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot requires a flight of fantasy into the realm of the absurd. He was in a plane that crashed into the side of a mountain during its landing approach. When exactly was he shot in the head? You continue to RUN from this. How did it happen?
(1) Did "THEY" shoot him BEFORE the flight and sneaked his dead body onto the seat on the plane, like Weekend at Bernie's and hope nobody would notice the hole in his head? Preposterous.
(2)Did they shoot him DURING the flight in full view of a plane full of witnesses? (In which case, how exactly did "THEY" arrange for the plane to crash without getting themselves killed in the process? Were they wearing suits made of the same material that black boxes on planes are made of to ensure they'd survive the crash? Did they bring parachutes onto the plane and jump out the back right after bumping him off (and take time to tamper with the plane in a way that would ensure it would crash, but not leave any evidence of tampering)? Or were THEY a Mohammed Atta-type suicide crew willing to die with the other witnesses to the shooting?
(3) Did a Croatian hit squad fortuitously arrived on the scene to scale the mountain and shoot him in the head (planning for the unlikely possibility that he might survive a plane crash)? How could they possibly know where the plane would crash? Or did they have hundreds of hit squads in place throughout the area? You claim that when the rescue team arrived, they said another team got there first. The rescuers did not suggest any foul play on the part of this other team. As I previously said, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof. If your suggestion that the US sent a hit team to a crash site to murder a possible plane crash survivor is NOT an extraordinary allegation, then nothing is. But instead of providing extraordinary proof to support your extraordinary allegations, you provide ZERO proof. For your conspiracy theory to be remotely plausible, it isn't enough to say that one team got there before another. You have to provide some evidence that the first team was there to commit foul play and secondly how they knew EXACTLY where to be in the first place. Otherwise, how could they insure that the real rescue team wouldn't get there first. That was the point of my question, which you pointedly ignored. Are you RUNNING from this Chooser?
These are the only possibilities, each of which has holes bigger than the hole you imagine is in Ron Brown's head. If I adopted your debate tactics, I would say you are ignoring the point because you are LYING or planting DISINFORMATION. But I won't resort to your shameful tactics. I'll just point out the humongous holes in your theories and watch you RUN from the facts.
Your claim that I defend crooked DemocRATS is another BIG LIE. Prove it, LIAR. Find ONE post where I did that! In fact, the only one on these threads who defends crooked DemocRATS would be you.
According to you, anyone who thinks Ron Brown wasn't murdered must be a Clinton defender. After all, MurryMom is a Clinton defender and MurryMom doesn't think Clinton murdered Ron Brown. So anyone who thinks Ron Brown wasn't murdered must be a Clinton defender too, right? That is the level of your logic, right? So if someone posted that John Wilkes Booth didn't assassinate Lincoln, Bill Clinton did it -- then by the same twisted logic, ANYONE who disagrees with that statement is a Clinton defender. That's your argument -- repeated umpteen times on dozens of threads -- in a nutshell. It never dawned on you that OTHERS don't believe the Clinton had Ron Brown murdered because those charges are only slightly less preposterous than if someone claimed Clinton murdered Lincoln.
Let's apply your logic to your own positions. Anyone who is critical of ANY accusation made against a crooked DemocRAT must be a crooked DemocRAT himself, right?
Last I checked Ron Brown was a DemocRAT.
Last time I checked, Ron Brown was a crooked DemocRAT.
Everyone except you could care less about Ron Brown being dead (some might even say good riddance to a dead crook). But you are determined to find his "killers" and bring them to justice.
By your own demented logic, that makes you a defender of crooked DemocRAT.
No. We can't "nail" him. The worst thing about clintoon is that he is a very divisive figure. W has done a very good job of uniting Americans - even before 9/11. We would undo all of that good work by trying to nail clintoon. Let's get rid of any power he ever had by relegating him to the dustbuckets.
hill won't run for the Senate again. She wants the WH.
The way to remove the clintoon's power is to ignore them. If we continue to give them the power to guide our actions, we are responsible for the damage that they do.
Yes, billys friends are running the DNC. And every time I see McAulifffe I say thanks that he isn't speaking for Republicans. And carVILE isn't any more charismatic.
The Dems are still trading on the appeal of the clintoons (I never did understand that, but that's a fact). The Dems don't have any attractive spokespeople other than the clintoons - some like dashole, but he's busy self-destructing.
The GOP has never known how to capitalize on their own best assets. Right now we should be spending all of our energy promoting the most popular President in history (yes, he is!) and an almost universally admired First Lady. Plus the top notch Cabinet he has assembled. Let the trash get swept away without fanfare.
But that's never going to happen! The best you would see would be a re-run of the OJ trial. If there was to be a trial, it would be held in DC, where something like 95% of the possible jurors are Dems and slavishly devoted to the clintoons. They'd wind up with sympathy, a restitution of their legal costs, and no penalty.
It isn't that. It's that they would waste all of the energy they've spent on uniting Americans to divide us again (yes, there are still a lot of devoted clintoon supporters) and they would not have accomplished anything useful.
Much better that they use whatever political capital they have to fight terrorism, improve education, and impose some sort of fiscal discipline. All of those are difficult, and much more useful than revenge against the smallest, pettiest people who have ever occupied the WH.
Why??? Judicial Watch is overreaching. There are very few in this country who want the spectacle of a clintoon trial. I sure don't, and I dislike those vermin more than almost anyone. Just let them go away! ...
Let them go away? They intend nothing of the sort, obviously.
I'll make you a deal. You make them go away and I won't care any more.
Yet you didn't refute what I posted in that remark. That's because it is all true.
Funny how you accuse others of lies and ad hominem attacks, which is what you do in every one of your posts.
Oh really? Then back up your assertion with some quotes showing where I have lied. Go ahead. You will note that in instances where I accuse people of lying I do provide quotes. In your case you posted statements about the photographer and pathologists in the Brown case which were TOTALLY untrue and I proved it by posting quotes from the photographer and the pathologists. So why can't you even provide the names of the two pathologists you alluded to in your post?
And as to ad hominem attacks ... be specific. Point out one of mine. Do you mean my calling certain people democRATS? Well, again, when I do I demonstrate with quotes from them that that they debate like democRATS and even hold views that democRATS would applaud ... so if the shoe fits ...
You claim I didn't ask you for sources. That is a BIG LIE.
Here you go again, trying to be DISHONEST. The context in which you said you asked for sources was the RON BROWN case and my list of items about the facts in the Brown case ... not the events surrounding Inhofe's propellor coming off. And by the way, you will notice that when you asked me for a source in the Inhofe case, I provided one. Now granted, I couldn't find a statement that said Clinton CALLED the meeting but he was going to a meeting with Clinton. And given the FACT that Inhofe was one of the most vocal opponents of Clintons ... who accused the administration of TREASON on the floor of Congress ... how likely is it that Inhofe REQUESTED the meeting? Hummmm? NOW, why can't you even provide ANY source for your UNTRUE statements about the photographer and the pathologists? Hummmm?
Furthermore, the accident involving Inhofe's plane was investigated by the NTSB and a report was issued, which explained the accident resulted from an installation error -- not sabotage.
Good. Now what does that have to do with the facts in the Brown case other than that if Brown was murdered then the NTSB was part of the coverup in that investigation and therefore should be suspect in the Inhofe case TOO. How many Freepers FULLY TRUST the NTSB at this point ... after TWA800 and all the other curious crash investigations we have witnessed? Show of hands ....
Your claim that I refuse to discuss the Ron Brown case is another BIG LIE. I researched the case and pointed out a number of problems with your 6,500 word screed on the subject.
OH REALLY? Why don't you be specific and tell us how many out of the 50 items I list in my summary of the events surrounding the crash you tried to address ... one ... two ... three?
I told you exactly what I thought of your "evidence"
Yes ... all without EVER dealing with the actual facts.
and explained why you had failed to establish a plausible scenario under which he was murdered.
Or really? Tell us EXACTLY what is implausible about the following ... which was posted to you and other "move-on'ers" REPEATEDLY without EVER receiving ONE SPECIFIC comment. Here's the scenario. The plane was spoofed into flying into the mountain using the portable beacon that was missing from the airport. That's not my idea. It was a scenario suggested by no less an authority than Aviation Week based on the EVIDENCE. Perhaps, a cleanup crew is waiting near the expected crash site (afterall, THEY know where the plane is coming down). At that point they may have put a bullet in Brown's head to make sure. To support this possibility we have the FACT that Associated Press reported that the FIRST rescuers to reach the crash site were MET by three Americans that were already on the ground. These Americans have NEVER been mentioned by our government. They are not mentioned in the bogus Accident Investigation report that you and the other "move-on'ers" put so much FAITH in. We ALSO have the FACT that TWO survivors were reported to the Department of State by Abe Sockowitz (yet the Clinton administration NEVER mentioned this nor commented on it once Judicial Watch discovered the FACT). Plus, we have the fact that initially all rescue search efforts were over the Adriatic ... miles from the crash site. Perhaps that was to give the cleanup crew time to make sure? Plausible.
We also have some other problems with the government SCENARIO. Why did an AWACS and the airport lose both transponder contact and voice contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? That's two separate systems and they lost them BOTH at the SAME TIME. What a COINCIDENCE. And this is, again, according to Aviation Week. Do you doubt their veracity? Find ANYTHING in your bogus Accident Investigation report to explain this ... ANYTHING. Also, the rear door of the plane was found open at the crash site which does not PRECLUDE someone being on board to make sure that communication with the airport was cut off and the location of the plan would remain unknown.
Now I am NOT suggesting Brown was shot while onboard ... perhaps ... perhaps not ... but even this possibility is not PRECLUDED by the evidence at hand. What would the pilots try to do if they lost all forms of communication at the same time their VIP was shot? Remember, this happens only 8 miles or so from the airport. They would try to land as soon as possible ... never giving a thought that the beacon signal was from a bogus location. And in the pandamonium that would occur it is entirely PLAUSIBLE that the shooter (or at least the person responsible for cutting off all communication) would be able to exit the plane. Ever heard of a parachute?
And one last item you CONSISTENTLY run from ... the "suicide" of the chief mechanic at the airport ... the one who was in charge of that missing beacon. What a COINCIDENCE that he should kill himself just days after the crash and before he could be interviewed. What a strange way to kill oneself ... shotgun to the CHEST. I'm curious Wallace, does the BOGUS report the government put out mention either of these facts? Does it claim like the NY TIMES did (only paper I know of to report this and they certainly do the democRATS bidding) that the maintenance chief killed himself over "romantic" problems. Tell me, if he had just been involved in a major airplane crash ... don't you think that "romantic" problems would be the last thing on his mind at the moment? This just seems a little toooooo CONVENIENT an explanation, don't you think?
And notice readers. Wallace is STILL RUNNING from the what the pathologists and photographer and x-ray suggest. He STILL isn't addressing why he tried to pass off DISINFORMATION about their involvement and views? And he has the cart before the horse. Don't you think before we rule out a murder because HE can't imagine a scenario where that would be possible, we should investigate whether there was a murder? Afterall, the PHYSICAL evidence and the opinions of the government's own EXPERTS in such matters is that he MAY HAVE BEEN MURDERED. We also have SWORN TESTIMONY as to the motive for his murder. And all we need to do to see it it is true is exhume and autopsy the body.
Your response was to bombard me with a farrago of irrelevant minutiae, preposterous inferences and logical fallacies. For example, your ridiculous claim that the government bought the silence of the crash victims' families.
Now why is that ridiculous? They government paid out about $14 MILLION dollars, on average, to the families of the victims and, IN RETURN, the families dropped their lawsuits against the government ... stopped their lawyers from digging up what happened after the crash. Furthermore, why can't you explain why the bogus Accident Investigation Report (remember, there was no Safety Board Investigation as there should have been) contains no reference to the opinions expressed by the pathologists and photographer at the examination of Brown's body? Why doesn't that report mention the suspicious nature of the x-ray of Brown's head? Yet that report is supposed to contain material of relevance in any lawsuits that follow. Instead, that report only contains the statements of Gormley ... who has since admitted that those statements were UNTRUE! Furthermore, why weren't ANY of the families told IN ANY FORMAT about the statements of the pathologists and photographer and the suspicious contents of the head x-ray? They only found out about those things YEARS later when the whistleblowers came forward. And if those MILITARY whistleblowers were just "mistaken", why did the Clinton administration DESTROY THEIR CAREERS rather than just sit them down and show them their "mistake"? Why are you RUNNING from ANY discussion of these FACTS, Wallace?
The investigation explained the mistakes the pilots made which resulted in the crash.
Oh. Are you now suggesting those very experienced pilots in addition to all the other mistakes they made just HAPPENED to turn off both the transponder and the radios? Yeah ... that report did a great job of explaining their mistakes ... didn't it?
It never occurred to you that what you call hush money (with no evidence whatsoever) happens in 99% of accident cases in which there is evidence of liability.
But why didn't they tell the lawyers and families ALL the facts? You don't suppose they might have asked for more information if they were told that pathologists at the examination used the words BULLET WOUND and called for an autopsy. You don't suppose they might have asked more questions if they learned that the reason no autopsy was performed is that the Whitehouse and JCS ORDERED there be none. You don't suppose they might have "settled" for MORE?
It's called a settlement, but instead of going with the simplest and best explanation,
I'm not the one IGNORING the government's own experts and the contents of the x-ray of Brown's head. It doesn't get any SIMPLER than that. You are the one creating SCENARIOS.
you prefer to smear the reputation of hundreds of people by calling it hush money -- implying that there was foul play, that they knew it and took money to keep quiet.
I didn't say that. I suggest that the Clinton government kept the families IN THE DARK and offered a VERY GENEROUS (deny that) settlement to keep them from digging any deeper. I'm also suggesting that SOME of those on board the plane were involved in CRIMINAL activities (remember the trade mission seat CONTRIBUTIONS?) and that fact would give the government additional leverage to keep people from digging deeper. And some of the people (like the Brown wife and son) were DIRECTLY involved in the CRIMES (in fact, they were already INDICTED). The government had plenty of leverage to keep them quiet. A little cash or an offer of continued employment (Michael's still working for the DNC) only made it that much easier to do just what you and the "move-on'ers" are doing ... stick their heads in the ground and PRETEND nothing CRIMINAL happened.
Hundreds of people KNOW that 38 people, including their relatives, were MURDERED, and every single one agreed to remain silent in exchange for CASH!
DISINFORMATION. MANY of the people probably STILL do not know of the allegations that have been leveled by the whistleblowers and all the other facts in the case. What mainstream news sources have reported it? NONE. Did the government ever tell them? NO. (in fact, the families received a letter from the government telling them not to believe anything they heard about the possibility ... it was all UNTRUE). And you are STILL ignoring the hard, physical evidence suggesting a bullet wound. Why?
The scenario is patently ridiculous, since if even one person talks the cover is blown and no one can guarantee that NO ONE will talk.
But people have talked Wallace ... the MILITARY photographer and the pathologists. And the response of the government was to DESTROY these people's careers ... even threaten THEM with JAIL! And if that's the government's FIRST response don't you think that might put a damper on others coming forward? Same with the families. I'm sure many of them have heard of the Clinton Body Count. If they were convinced that they murdered a Secretary of Commerce AND GOT AWAY WITH IT because they control all the instruments of law and order and justice AND THE MEDIA, don't you think they might have second thoughts ... especially if they'd just received MILLIONS in cash?
It boggles the mind how utterly foolish someone must be to think a scenario like this is remotely plausible, never mind how utterly repellant and cynical to think HUNDREDS of people could be bought off in a case involving the murder of their families.
No Wallace. What boggles the mind is that people who CLAIM to be conservative can ignore the allegations of MILITARY officers in good standing, what they see in a photo of an x-ray, and all the rest of the incriminating FACTS in this case ... in order to protect democRATS! What boggles the mind is that these same "move-on'ers" are also doing the same in all the other Clinton/DNC scandals. What's the problem, Wallace, nothing to say about the Riady non-refund?
Your claim that you refuted my post is another BIG LIE.
Well just like I showed that you LIED in the post you made that Luis Gonzalez choose to repost, I did the same in all our previous "debates" ... and in every single instance it has been YOU who has RUN without addressing the statements of FACT that I've posted. I invite our readers to search the archives and read some of our exchanges. They can see for a fact that you've done exactly what I maintain ... avoid 99% of the facts in the Brown case and SPIN or be DISHONEST about the rest.
The fact is you have yet to provide a plausible explanation consistent with established facts as to when Ron Brown was shot.
A ANOTHER CLEAR LIE. I've done so REPEATEDLY as even a cursory search of the archives will prove. You just NEVER respond to the SPECIFIC points I make. Instead, you just keep REPEATING this LIE, just like VA Advogado, who you appear to be good friends with, keeps repeating his LIE ... that Brown was autopsied.
Imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot requires a flight of fantasy into the realm of the absurd.
Well then Aviation week is an "absurd" publication. The rest of what you post is just more SPIN. Why don't you read the "scenario" I described above and address it SPECIFICALLY ... instead of simply repeating your dishonest SPIN again and again and again as you have been doing. I've addressed your arguments before IN DETAIL and in each case you've RUN, failing to rebut my remarks. I'm tired of dealing with a LIAR. Let's just see you deal SPECIFICALLY with what I wrote above as to a PLAUSIBLE scenario. THEN, let's see you deal SPECIFICALLY with the allegations of the pathologists and the photographer ... instead of posting LIES like the last time you mentioned them AND THEN RAN.
Your claim that I defend crooked DemocRATS is another BIG LIE. Prove it, LIAR. Find ONE post where I did that!
Well take a look at your last one ... the one I'm responding to!
According to you, anyone who thinks Ron Brown wasn't murdered must be a Clinton defender.
That is not what I think. I think people who debate like democRATS and defend democRATS against investigation of their crimes, as many "move-on'ers" are doing, may in fact be democRATS. I can stomach people not believing that Brown was murdered if they are willing to argue the facts. YOu are the ONLY ONE of the "move-on'ers" who has even come close and even you are demonstrating that you have no interest in really doing so. You have in the end resorted to the same democRAT tactics the others have demonstrated.
After all, MurryMom is a Clinton defender and MurryMom doesn't think Clinton murdered Ron Brown. So anyone who thinks Ron Brown wasn't murdered must be a Clinton defender too, right?
That's not my logic ... that's yours. I've never said any such thing. I do think it is interesting that the same people that consistently won't address issues like the Riady non-refund are the same people who claim Brown wasn't murdered without debating the specifics. I find it interesting that VA Advogado SAID that he believed Ron Brown wasn't murdered (but LIED ABOUT THE AUTOPSY), yet consistently shows up to support you and Gonzalez in debates on this subject. I do think it interesting that every single "move-on'er" that attacks conservative sources such as Ruddy, Newsmax, etc., won't tell us what sources of information they use ... what sources THEY consider reliable. It starts to become a pattern, don't you think?
So if someone posted that John Wilkes Booth didn't assassinate Lincoln, Bill Clinton did it -- then by the same twisted logic, ANYONE who disagrees with that statement is a Clinton defender. That's your argument -- repeated umpteen times on dozens of threads -- in a nutshell.
TYPICAL democRAT debating technique. Rather than address the SPECIFICS in the allegation under discussion, you try and relate it to some other outlandish idea that the other person HAS NEVER MENTIONED. That's the same tactic that ABC and NBC news used when they tried to relate those who think Brown might have been murdered to UFOOLOGISTS. Yet ABC and NBC have NEVER reported the facts in the Brown case, the reason people like me think it was murder, to their audience.
It never dawned on you that OTHERS don't believe the Clinton had Ron Brown murdered because those charges are only slightly less preposterous than if someone claimed Clinton murdered Lincoln.
Do you think that if you repeat this DISHONESTY enough, that will substitute for YOU clearly IGNORING the facts that have been presented over and over to you? Perhaps a democRAT might think that way since that is the way democRATS typically operate when it comes to shaping the opinions of their sycophant supporters.
Let's apply your logic to your own positions. Anyone who is critical of ANY accusation made against a crooked DemocRAT must be a crooked DemocRAT himself, right?
That's not what I've said. But you are employing a debating technique commonly used by democRATS. I'm critical of those who won't debate the SPECIFICS in an accusation of democRAT criminal behavior but instead suggest that something like "all is well ... no need to investigate ... trust the government".
Last I checked Ron Brown was a DemocRAT.
Yes he was, and a highly place one, which is why he knew things that would have seriously damaged the democRATS if he had turned states evidence as SWORN TESTIMONY by others suggest he was prepared to do. Which goes to motive.
Last time I checked, Ron Brown was a crooked DemocRAT.
Yes he was, and a well place one, which is why he knew things that would have seriously damaged the democRATS if he had turned states evidence as SWORN TESTIMONY by others suggest he was prepared to do. Which goes to motive.
Everyone except you could care less about Ron Brown being dead (some might even say good riddance to a dead crook).
Ah ... so you don't care that he might have squealed on the democRATS if he had lived? You do realize that crooks squealling on other crooks is the way that many a crook has been brought to justice ... especially in the mafia.
But you are determined to find his "killers" and bring them to justice.
If it helps the conservative cause ... yes. I should think you'd agree since you CLAIM to be a conservative.
By your own demented logic, that makes you a defender of crooked DemocRAT.
No, that's your logic. I WANT the public to know the CRIMES Brown and the rest of the democRATS committed. You are the one who is RUNNING from even INVESTIGATING those crimes. You are the one allowing Brown's crimes to pass below the radar of the public at large. Why are YOU protecting Brown's reputation so it remains excellent as far as the public at large is concerned? Only a democRAT would do that, I suspect.
Let's take your trash analogy further. Trash, unless it is HAULED AWAY, has a habit of piling up, rotting and eventually causing disease. It leads to an unsightly community and a rapid reduction in real estate value. And rotting trash just attracts more RATS. Plus it encourages the neighbors to not haul away their trash either. And if the trash has toxic waste in it, as this trash does, its effects are long lasting and VERY damaging.
If this were ONLY about these 2 petty people, Bill and Hill, I might agree. But it is not. Its about DOZENS of high level democRATS ... infact the whole leadership of the democRAT party. Its about DOZENS of democRAT government employees, many of who are still in position where they can damage things further, who committed REALLY SERIOUS CRIMES. Unless we investigate, we won't even know how deep the ROT is, who big the pile of TRASH we have to deal with is. You can't run from crimes as serious a murder and treason. Doing so only makes WEAKER, not stronger ... only makes you more like those you despise!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.