Posted on 02/20/2002 4:21:45 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
If there ever was a vast right wing conspiracy, this much is now clear: it certainly never included President Bush - whose Justice Department is now defending New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit brought by Clinton White House whistleblower Sheryll Hall and Judicial Watch.
Over their objections, "the Bush Justice Department represents Hillary Clinton in this lawsuit free of charge, saying that it is in its 'discretion' to represent private parties," the legal watchdog group said in a press release Wednesday.
Hall was the White House computer expert who alleged that Mrs. Clinton was part of a conspiracy to force her out of her job after she told investigators about a data base compiled on the former first lady's instructions that illegally used White House social lists for Democratic Party fund-raising.
Hall also exposed the White House e-mail scandal, where millions of subpoenaed e-mails on some of the most serious Clinton scandals were withheld from investigators.
But despite her heroic efforts to expose Clinton White House wrongdoing, Justice Department lawyers were arguing against Hall yesterday - and instead for Hillary Clinton, a sight that was nearly too much to take for Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman.
"I had to shake my head in wonderment at the sight of the Bush Justice Department working hand in hand with the DNC to defend the Hillary Clinton-led conspiracy to use the White House computer systems for illegal fund-raising," he complained.
"Rather than improperly giving Hillary Clinton free legal representation in this private lawsuit, the Bush Justice Department ought to be prosecuting her for this illegal database and retaliation."
There you go again, You ought not make comments on a public forum based on your assumprions. It makes you look so foolish. Clueless. So, now we know that you were never a Bush supporter. Big surprise. How dare you say I didn't know who President Bush was or that I didn't listen to the debates. You have no idea of what you are talking about. May I tell you how little weight any questions posed by Jim Leher has in my decision making process ? Zero. Leher lost all my respect the day he blew the opportunity of a lifetime. The day the Monica Lewinsky story broke Leher had Clinton sitting before him for an interview and he let the weasel off. It's totally preposperous to think that I'd be influenced by any partisan comparison Leher hoped to draw with his questions.
I take it you're not a Yalie. LOL. Don't look now but your envy is showing and those green eyes are shading your judgment. Have you ever considerd studying the Constitution with a qualified tutor ? It might really help you.
--------------------------
Because Bush says we are putting it all behind us and moving on. Which means the Clintons have got away with it and there will be no qestioning it. And Hillary is likely to winf up president because nobody has held her accountable for anything.
--------------------------
NO! We are dealing with fanatics who want to present Bush as a massiah. They'll do or say anything to believe it. Anyone who doesn't see it is classified as for Owlgore, Pat Buchanan, McCain, or whatever accusations can be dredged up.
You'll also notice some of the people on this forum just plain ain't too bright.
That's an interesting comment. If you'll note it was Jim Jones who asked his followers to back everything he did. You better reassess who's asking you to drink what here. We're not your fearless leader.
I'm not asking you to dislike Bush. I am asking that you look at this objectively. If you wouldn't like if Clinton did it, you shouldn't if Bush does it.
Do you feel that it is improper to speak frankly and honestly about public matters?
I don't attack your loyalty to our nation in times of conflict, but to carry your dedication to the ultimate conclusion would be to completely cancel any attempt at oversight.
And should events warrant, we would even be forbidden to talk about problems in public. I don't think that is what our forefathers envisioned.
Here is a link to a Global Crossing story indicating some bid rigging for a defense communications contract. A Communist Chinese company is a major player in the financial restructuring of the Bahama based Global Crossing. Why are we considering this bankrupt company for our defense communication contracts at the detriment of U.S. companies such as AT&T?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/632094/posts
How Irate would the 2nd Amendment Bushies be if the Clintons had Dried Up the flow of Background Check Forms, which in effect has shut off gun sales (at least handguns)?
It's "just a glitch" if jr.'s admin does it, huh?
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.