Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
"He never left his fingerprints anywhere near his crimes but everything he did in the dark must be brought to the light of Law I no longer think this will happen and I don't see it as a positive but perhaps others do"
How, if he did so much in the dark, can Slick's malfeasance be discovered and proven in a court of law? Here's the rub I have in your case you make.Maybe, just maybe, DOJ lawyers have been looking, and can't find enough to even indict.Do they then hold a press conference and say "Folks, sorry, we think the Clinton's are criminals, yet we've looked far and wide, and can't find evidence to indict.Have a good day".
Just how do you go from there??
Advance warning would't help the Clintons.
They're smart enough to already have a defense
prepared for any possible charges.
They know what crimes they committed.
The Clinton's don't need to do an investigation first.
Secrecy only hurts Bush.
Secrecy makes it seem as if Bush isn't doing his job.
Secrecy makes Bush appear corrupt.
If Bush plans on operating in complete secrecy,
he should expect the skepticism
of those who don't see anything happening.
To: palo verde
"...Maybe, just maybe,
DOJ lawyers have been looking,
and can't find enough to even indict...."
Just how do you go from there?? # 1401 by habs4ever
************************
The Department of Justice
was involved in Clinton's crimes, habs4ever.
That's why Dan Burton wants their records.
The Department of Justice is corrupt.
That fact is the premise of this thread.
If a group of lawyers who worked for the Justice Department
investigated crimes involving their department,
and found no violations,
would you be surprised?
Why would anyone believe them?
Surprise .. Surprise
Secrecy is the only way to win a war. Secrecy prevent loose lips from sinking ships. Yet playing one's hand close to one's chest is strategy, not secrecy.
For instance, Daschle had agreed not to mention Bush's stance on ABM when briefed by the President. The little man nearly tripped over himself to get to a microphone and spill the beans before Putin was afforded an explanation directly from the President. Now, Bush has elected not to share his all of his future plans with our loose lipped congress.
Not revealing one's game plan (call it secrecy if you like), sir, is a must.
To: exodus
Surprise .. Surprise
# 1406 by Mo1
************************
Not to me, Mo1.
That's why I didn't vote for him.
To: exodus
Secrecy is the only way to win a war.
Secrecy prevent loose lips from sinking ships.
Yet playing one's hand close
to one's chest is strategy, not secrecy.
Not revealing one's game plan
(call it secrecy if you like), sir, is a must.
# 1407 by Quilla
************************
In a war, yes.
Clinton doesn't qualify as a war.
Clinton is a criminal, and a traitor.
We're not at war,
but let's assume we were.
Whould you allow a known traitor
freedom to act against the country
during time of war?
Clinton has no restrictions on his actions.
He can even leave the country.
Clinton's the worse traitor our nation ever produced,
but Bush allows him the means, freedom, and opportunity
to commit additional acts of betrayal.
I think that I argue my points fairly well, Zon.
Rather than telling me how to make my points,
why don't you just respond to my points?
You haven't given your opinion, Zon.
Do you believe that John Ashcroft is corrupt?
Before you tell me again not to use the word,
remember that it is in the title of the thread.
So far there are no indictments out of Ashcroft's Justice Department. Until we see him fry some of the powerful and formerly powerful, we have a burning desire to see the facts so we can force him into action.
When the Justice Department consistently produces justice we will be able to have faith again that justice will be served without our constant vigilance.
I think that I argue my points fairly well
Okay, no room for improvement. You've argued that well enough. You also argue for your limitations quite well but there's no need to point that out since you already know that..
Rather than telling me how to make my points, why don't you just respond to my points?
I didn't tell you how to make your points. I did offer some insights that I thought would help you make them better and receive less confrontation and conflict. However, you have made it abundantly clear that you seek conflict and confrontation and even when it is not there you chose to turn it into a confrontational conflict. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Before you tell me again not to use the word, remember that it is in the title of the thread.
My gosh, you're so busy looking for conflict and confrontation you don't even recognize when a person has was only trying to help. I never told you not to use the word recommend. After giving much educational information here's what I helpingly offered as advice.
""Rather [than] using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil, I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent"."
Bye.
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.