Breaking: David Kendall’s head constructed from the half-heads of two unrelated men:
Developing hard…
Posted on 03/06/2002 8:03:51 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Be careful, you don't know where that hand has been.
Judge Susan Weber Wright, partly based on the "irrelevant" Monica Lewinsky line of questioning and lying by Bubba, originally dismissed the Paula Jones lawsuit as "without merit". That gave Clinton and his cheerleaders months of "I told you so's!"
Later, Clinton finally is interrogated by the Ken Starr's team and has to admit the affair and that he lied under oath to a Federal Judge... This starts the impeachment bandwagaon.
One of the impeachment charges is "lying under oath" and "perjury" for Bubba's testimony in the Paula Jones deposition... but some Congressmen refuse to vote out that article of impeachment because "Judge Wright had not ruled that Clinton had lied under oath..." At the time, Judge Wright was "reviewing the record". This is one of the articles of impeachment that is NOT voted out by the House.
Judge Wright goes into hibernation while the House impeaches the Slick One... She doesn't do anything leading up to the Senate Trial... The Dems make that a SHAM trial and the Senate Republicans don't lift a finger to support the House Manager's case -- pretty much everyone pushing the problem down the road (while Usama Bin Laden is preparing for his grand day with Bubba and the USA thoroughly pre-occupied). The impeachment trial ends and Bubba escapes.
Now, after the important matter of impeachment is safely in the rear-view mirror, Judge Wright emerges and rules in favor of Paula Jones. Before the matter comes back to her for re-litigation, Bubba's lawyers settle for $850,000 -- does anyone remember the irony of Bubba settling a lawsuit that had been dismissed and the Clinton apologists saying: well, this is just putting all this behind us.
Finally, Judge Wright (Clinton's former student) cites Clinton for perjury... long after it could have done any good for consideration by Congress during impeachment.
In retrospect, it is amazing we have a Justice System left after 8 years of Clinton... So many people did the wrong thing during those 8 years -- it will take decades to clean-out the stench of the Clinton-Reno legacy.
Ethics and oversight are a thing of the past, just like our Constitution. Our Constitutional Republic has been overthrown by a Peoples Democracy, and very few give a damn.
Breaking: David Kendall’s head constructed from the half-heads of two unrelated men:
Developing hard…
FRegards,
CD
Well you are a "move-on" stealth democRAT sinkspur. Your only purpose on this forum is to keep issues that might REALLY harm the democRAT party and its CRIMINAL leaders from getting traction. Believe me, we ALL notice that ONCE AGAIN you don't address the FACTS but dish out SMEAR. Are you afraid of the facts, sinkspur? Would you care to prove me wrong by taking a stab at my Riady non-refund question?
The usual "move-on" tactic. There is ALWAYS an EXCUSE for avoiding a discussion about the facts. That way one can spin things and ignore those threads that do deal with specific issues like Brown. Every notice that? Hardly ever does a "move-on"er show up on one of those threads. Perhaps because 9 times out of 10, they DON'T know the facts.
I am also certain that the Vince Foster case won't be re-opened, at least by this administration. It has been the subject of intense investigation and while questions obviously remain, there's not the slightest hint of evidence linking a particular gunman. The best that can be said for that is that the circumstances don't confirm that it was a suicide.
You are HIDING behind investigations done by Clinton administration people. Are you suggesting we should believe their conclusion given that they REFUSED to answer DOZENS of significant questions? Are you trying to tell us they were properly conducted when many of the principle witnesses were never even interviewed? Reno said that about the Brown case and never even talked to the pathologists that were saying there might be a bullet in Brown's head. In the Foster case, go to the AIM website, read the questions that are being asked, and come back and tell us the answers. Visit fbi-coverup.com and address the many concerns listed there. Heck, just answer the questions that Barr asked Starr in a letter to him ... questions that Starr NEVER answered.
Why do you move-on'ers insist that we identify the murderer in the Foster and Brown cases before we even know for certain whether a murder was committed or not? Surely you aren't suggesting there is not motive in either case for some people to have done away with the men? Surely you aren't suggesting that a credible scenario exists that would allow the two men to turn up shot? You have the cart before the horse. Exhume the bodies and (in Brown's case) find a bullet or (in Foster's case) find a wound where there shouldn't be one, and THEN it will be time to ask WHO is the murderer.
You say the best that can be said is that the "circumstances don't confirm it was a suicide" ... BUT, the government told us that is WAS a suicide. Starr said all his staff was confident that it was a suicide (turns out that was a lie TOO since O'Reilly says multiple staffers told him that they did NOT agree with that conclusion). And if, as AIM and many others suggest based on EVIDENCE ... which you don't want to discuss ... , there are two wounds in Fosters head, there goes your suicide theory.
Another formal investigation into that would probably be unsuccessful in pinning the crime on anyone, but the political damage to the Administration would be unacceptable.
Sure ... just "move on" folks, like the democRATS want you to. Nothing to see here.
This "political damage" argument is sheer NONSENSE. The damage to the GOP is going to come when lifelong Republicans (like me) as well as other conservatives become convinced that the GOP is no different than the democRATS when it comes to upholding the law ... when we become convinced that there must be some really UGLY reason why they won't even investigate clear cases of democRAT criminality. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the California Republican primary. One of the messages there is that conservatives don't want the Republican party to be just like the democRATS.
It's possible that Bush doesn't want to commit political suicide and destroy the things he wants to accomplish for the country in an effort to seek vengeance and justice on the Clinton Administration.
You think this is about vengeance? You are WRONG. This is about making sure that our government does not going to allow the "elected" elite to get away with ANYTHING. That is the road to TYRANNY as so many governments throughout history have proven. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.
That is what it would be, wouldn't you agree? He might have made the calculation that seeking indictments early in his term might be both fatal and futile based on the evidence assembled so far.
Now you are try to appease me by playing another side of the "move-on"er coin. After first suggesting that we just "move on" and finding that not very convincing because the facts do NOT support such a philosophy, you try to suggest that Bush, et. al., are "going" to seek indictments later on. The problem with this is that in order to seek indictments, you must have sufficient proof ... and NOONE is out there gathering that proof. I challenge you, like I have all the other move-on'ers, to show us that an investigation is going on in ANY of the criminal ventures engaged in by the DNC. Even Pardongate has essentially been shut down. Sorry ... doesn't whitewash.
Another factor that you and the other "move-on"ers don't want to address is that by letting the democRATS get away with all they did, the cancer in that party (and the rot in the GOP party) is only going to grow worse. Thanks to GOP inaction on almost ALL fronts, the democRATS have learned that a President who controls the media (like they did AND STILL DO) and the law enforcement arm of the Federal government (like Clinton did) can get away with ANYTHING. Do you think that they won't use this knowledge the next time they get in the Whitehouse? They know that the GOP is toothless when it comes to keeping them from committing crimes. They know that afterwords, they can plead the 5th, lie or just pretend a memory lapse and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They know that they can steal elections and Republicans will do NOTHING. They know that after they commit the crimes, and Republicans are back in power, Republicans STILL won't do anything ... even if they have mountains of evidence proving the crimes. They know that they can ILLEGALLY examine the FBI files for damaging information on their opponents and publish the information in their controlled media ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They know that they can both OPENLY destroy the evidence of their wrong doing or simply disconnect the systems that are supposed to preserve a paper trail of government activities ... and the GOP will do nothing. They know that they can abuse the IRS, FBI and MILITARY, turning them into instruments for distracting the public from reports that might damage them or even use them to harass their enemies ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They know that they can intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who threatens them and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They know that they can get campaign funds from illegal sources (even by selling US secrets to the enemy) and Republicans will do NOTHING. And thanks to the failure of the Bush administration to investigate the Brown and Foster matters, the democRATS perhaps can even KILL high level members of the government who threaten to expose their activities and Republicans will do NOTHING.
THAT is why the Bush/Ashcroft need to draw the line and do what is RIGHT ... not just what is TEMPORARILY POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT.
Fine. Now tell me why Starr allowed Clinton to keep the FBI files that they ILLEGALLY obtained and were ILLEGALLY loading onto DNC databases for YEARS after both the Whitehouse and FBI had said they were returned. Starr was aware of this and said NOTHING. It is not irrational to suppose that Starr did what he did vis a vis Monica because the alternative was worse. Unless they found a distraction, Ron Brown was going to be the topic and if that happened the DNC and Clinton administration might be faced with trying to spin charges of MURDER and TREASON.
That's the thing, he didn't run the country. He came to power with our country handed to him like a ripe plum, so he didn't have anything to do, except mess stuff up. And, when there was something to do, he had his wife and all her gal pals doing his job for him. Maddie Albright did foreign policy, Reno did the legal end and Hillary made all of the domestic decisions.
He complained to his staff that he needed more time to himself, so they scheduled a free time in the afternoon. It was during that time that he made good on his response to a 20 year-old flashing her black thong at him.
Ronald Reagan had something like a couple of dozen appointments per week meeting heads of state or whatever. Clinton could only manage around four on a good week. So, to answer your question, he didn't run the country. He was the ultimate in figureheads.
The Clintons were careful to design WHODB to be interoperable with the DNC systems, and turned off the auditing systems that would have generated an evidence trail. It's more difficult to make a case when the criminal has destroyed the evidence.
The bottom line is: the Independent Counsel gave Congress clear and convincing evidence of Clinton's impeachable offenses. The House correctly voted to impeach Clinton (based largely on the Broaddrick rape evidence.) If the Senate fulfilled their oath and voted to remove Clinton from office, he could have been prosecuted for many of these other crimes. But the Senate failed. The Senate is responsible for the final miscarriage of justice - not the OIC.
I agree that the Senate was responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Lewinsky matter. But you miss my point. If Starr was trustworthy, why did he allow the FILEGATE CRIME to continue ... i.e., allow the files to ILLEGALLY remain in the Whitehouse for YEARS after the Whitehouse had publically claimed they were returned? I still say Starr DELIBERATELY discovered Monica at an opportune time ... forcing the Brown story out of the papers.
A court order to have the FBI files purged from WHODB probably could have been obtained, but that would be a civil action - not a criminal prosecution. There have been several lawsuits filed about White House misuse of data, but if I recall correctly, they are seeking monetary damages, not purging of the evidence.
Here's a thought - Clinton has probably transferred WHODB to Little Rock to use it for fundraising for his various foundations. Maybe it still contains the FBI files.
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.