[bayourod]

Chase, you and I both know that Loral made large campaign contributions to Clinton in exchange for Clinton allowing Loral to sell secret military technology to China that might result in the loss of millions of American lives and the destruction of our economy.

But as I recall, everything Clinton did was technically legal and within his discretion.

The problem as I understand it is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an explicit quid-pro-quo.

The fact that a man contributes a million dollars to the President's campaign and recieves a presidential pardon the next day is not legally any evidemce of a quid=pro-quo.

[BeAChooser]

But as I recall, everything Clinton did was technically legal and within his discretion.

The problem as I understand it is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an explicit quid-pro-quo.

Well, murdering a Secretary of Commerce to keep the fact that the DNC and Clinton campaigns were taking Chinese communist money in exchange for rubber stamping requests from DNC contributors and the Chinese government to provide what had been restricted technologies is "technically" illegal. Question ... how will anyone prove the quid-pro-quo if there is no investigation? I've challenged you before to provide any examples of Bush/Ashcroft investigating ANY of the crimes the DNC and Clinton administration committed ... say, starting with the Riady Non-Refund. I'm still waiting.