[bayourod]

". Because, for one thing, to really show whether or not there was a crime committed, you really have to question Bill Clinton. You really have to ask, 'Did Roger talk to his brother Bill about getting a pardon for Garland? Did Roger talk to anybody about getting a pardon for Garland?'" "

Do you understand what this statement actually means? It means that there is no way to get a conviction unless Bill Clinton confesses onder oath.

No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you. Try thinking about the article before posting it.

[MeekOneGOP]

". Because, for one thing, to really show whether or not there was a crime committed, you really have to question Bill Clinton. You really have to ask, 'Did Roger talk to his brother Bill about getting a pardon for Garland? Did Roger talk to anybody about getting a pardon for Garland?'" "

Do you understand what this statement actually means? It means that there is no way to get a conviction unless Bill Clinton confesses onder oath.

No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you. Try thinking about the article before posting it.

---

Huh? Why don't you tell me exactly what that means?

1. Why would you blame me because of an article's content and someone's interpretation of that content?

2. "No wonder so many people are getting irritated with you." Really? First complaint I'd had along those lines. Are people talking behind my back?? Tell them to talk to ME if they have a problem with any of my posts. Maybe I'll learn something. . .If you have a complaint about any OTHER articles I've posted that have irritated you, let me know which ones and why.

Thanks for your input.