Replies

Oh come on now. Stop attempting to make a moral equivalence between Bush and Clinton and then try to call it even-handedness. It doesn't fly.

The Clintons destroyed or hid relevant records and lied constantly about Whitewater. Bush has had everything about this stock sale investigated many times. His former broker doesn't want to say who bought the stock Bush sold. I don't see what's so ominous about this as Bush has given the SEC everything it wanted. They must know who bought the stock. If it was somehow tainted, this would have been raised by this late date.

This is just political nit-picking, looking for something to go "AH-HA"! over and attempting to paint Bush as 'just like Clinton' when the opposite is true and that's what makes Democrats squirm.

I see a skepticism on your part that is beyond reason in this case. Bush isn't Clinton, nothing was shredded or 'lost' and no one lied. There is nothing there and continual attempts to make it appear as if there is are wasted energy, unless you're a liberal Democrat with a anti-Bush virus in your veins. If not, this is a non-starter, no matter who bought the stock.

But the paperwork on a 20 year old land deal is fair game, see any inconsistency there. I won't stoop to the level of the klintoon apologists.

A few differences between the two cases. The US government didn't lose any money bailing out the broker or the person who bought the stock.

Bush didn't get anyone to take out an SBA loan to keep the broker or Harken afloat.

Bush didn't avoid paying taxes on a forgiven loan.

Laura didn't lie about doing legal work to keep any schemes afloat.

I could continue if you'd like. Now, tell me how they are similar.