The only belief I've expoused (whatever the hell that is) on here is that I believe Larry Klayman is a shyster and crook.
Oh, yeah. And I also believe evidence has to be PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW to be considered THE TRUTH or THE FACTS.
BAC doesn't agree. Shocking, isn't it?
The only belief I've expoused (whatever the hell that is) on here is that I believe Larry Klayman is a shyster and crook.
Espouse (sorry, z is an s, and it means ADVOCATE). Howlin, you do indeed promote a "move-on" philosophy when it comes to the crimes in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate (in fact, you've even suggested no crimes were committed). And you do indeed claim that no crime was committed in the death of Brown or Foster. Must I quote you AGAIN?
And I also believe evidence has to be PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW to be considered THE TRUTH or THE FACTS.
Wait a minute. I thought you've been claiming all along that it isn't "evidence" UNTIL its been PROVEN TRUE in a court of law? Are you finally agreeing with me that your earlier definition of evidence was bogus? In any case, you are just trying to make up an EXCUSE for not even beginning an investigation. See, folks, Howlin believes the circumstances (satisfied?) in the Ron Brown (and other cases) have to be proven IN COURT before we can even begin to INVESTIGATE the possibility that he was murdered (or other crimes committed). And she somehow seems to think it is Klayman's job to do that, rather than Ashcroft's. Somehow, that just doesn't make any sense ... except perhaps to a democRAT.
339 posted on 11/28/01 1:58 PM Pacific by Howlin
Not of him, no. I think if someone would just tell him they do not believe Brown was killed, then he'd be happy. The fact that no one will argue with him on that issue, is really taking him to the cleaners.