Posted on 01/24/2008 7:07:40 AM PST by xsysmgr
Beyond the melodrama of Sen. Hillary Clinton's tears-on-her-pillow triumph in New Hampshire and her gaming victory in Nevada lies the profoundly disturbing question of the Clintons' hidden record of suspected crimes.
It's that very record which likely prompted Sen. John Kerry's sudden endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama just two days after Mrs. Clinton's first primary win, followed by two more supportive votes from ranking congressional Democrats.
Their swift response was a clear sign that ranking Democratic colleagues are determined to derail Mrs. Clinton. Why? Because there exists a vault of information American voters are not aware of concerning the Clintons — information which should have been brought to the nation's attention well before the kickoff of the 2008 presidential campaign.
>
The bedeviling problem is that party leaders on both sides of the congressional aisle conspired two years ago to bury the telltale documents...120 missing pages of the Barrett Report which, ...contain sufficient evidence of Clinton misdeeds not only to furl Mrs. Clinton's presidential flag but quite possibly to send her and her miscreant husband straight to the courtroom dock. Yet the papers have lain moldering in some deep Capitol Hill tomb with no one daring to dig them up though they can be exhumed on demand by any member of Congress.
...Why grasp at the desperate straw of redaction? ...Suppressed evidence cannot remain suppressed forever and the Republicans are well aware of the wild card they have in the hole. Odds are that's why no Republican congressman has as yet unearthed the missing pages: The Republicans are banking on Mrs. Clinton, the scenario goes, to win the Democratic nomination so they can bake her in Mr. Barrett's oven in the election campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I do not know enough about a convention where there is no clear winner, can a candidate who has not been mentioned or dropped out become the candidate?
Does anyone know how the process work?
For example, it's much more reasonable to pin the Obama endorsement on Kerry's own vanity.
The Clintons have ignored him, and JF'nK's pride is wounded. And they don't need his support anyway, so there's no personal gain for him there. But by backing Obama, he gets a chance to portray himself as relevant -- a kingmaker.
So we should support Hillary over Obama? Sounds like a Risky Scheme to me. I’d prefer to defeat Satan in the primary and take on Osama in the general election.
Brilliant. I know the crimes are there. I’ll believe it when I see it though...
If only it were so. I can’t help, though, remembering that while the iron was hot, our namby-pamby inbred politicos failed to strike, and oust a rapist from office.
Why bother taking Hillary out of contention for the Presidency, at the risk of her outing something about ME that would interfere with my full-salary Congressional retirement?
I will be the first to stand and applaud, however, if one of them has the guts to do it.
I don’t trust any of these aces in the hole. We’ve been burned by them too many times in the Bush administration. Big promises of a big hidden secret about to be revealed and then... fizzle, fizzle, nothing there.
I’d rather fight the battle that’s already there, out in the open, against socialism and treason. All the rats are plenty guilty of those two crimes without us needing any aces in the hole to boost our spirits.
We don’t need to boost our spirits. We just need to fight better.
We don’t have ONE Congressman who has the NERVE to ask for the Barrett report to be released???? WHY THE HELL NOT??? What about Adam Putnam???
“The MO of the Clintons is” Hitlery!
SHHHHHHH!
The only flaw in this clever analysis is that it presumes someone, anyone, in the republican “leadership” has the stones to pull it off.
No, they will polarize, we will apologize.
And the Bush Justice Department is AWOL on this as well as most other issues.
The report....as it was relaeased......very large file....
http://barrett.oic.gov./finalreport/index.htm
I do not know enough about a convention where there is no clear winner, can a candidate who has not been mentioned or dropped out become the candidate?
Does anyone know how the process work?
Read the history of how James Garfield became president. He was the textbook example of a dark horse candidate. It took well over 30 ballots at the convention to finally nominate the guy who said he did not want to run. Sound familiar?
I’ve asked my RINO rep. to release this report, since we paid for it. That sound you hear is him hurrying to get it released./s
What’s his name? Maybe we can ALL write him!
Democrat ace holes. Hmmm....there’s a joke in there somewhere...
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.