Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
_____________________________________________________
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
_____________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "spacemonkey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
28 Jun 2003 07:45:54 PM |
|
|
Sounds like another JFK conspiracy theory.
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3kdsfvk8088d2v8napc7sh1agjpbobhe4f@4ax.com...
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
_____________________________________________________
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
_____________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberals.HATE.America!," |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
28 Jun 2003 10:52:58 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3kdsfvk8088d2v8napc7sh1agjpbobhe4f@4ax.com...
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
Yes, Juanita Brodderick forced the impeached ***** to rape her.
--
If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in
Vietnam - oh wait, he does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
28 Jun 2003 09:53:27 PM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3kdsfvk8088d2v8napc7sh1agjpbobhe4f@4ax.com...
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
Define your arguement... what do you mean by 'it'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David L. Moffitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
29 Jun 2003 01:52:42 AM |
|
|
"Mark" <mburggra1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HwsLa.70011$Io.6544361@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: <grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:3kdsfvk8088d2v8napc7sh1agjpbobhe4f@4ax.com...
: > Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
: > Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
:
: Define your arguement... what do you mean by 'it'?
%%%% Define "it"? I'm still waiting on the definition of "is"!!! :o/
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
28 Jun 2003 10:18:49 PM |
|
|
"Mark" <mburggra1@earthlink.net> wrote in news:HwsLa.70011$Io.6544361
@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3kdsfvk8088d2v8napc7sh1agjpbobhe4f@4ax.com...
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
Define your arguement... what do you mean by 'it'?
no kidding -- setup how? What? When? that kind of thing
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
04 Jul 2003 07:36:39 PM |
|
|
In article rightwing wrote:
(MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE) wrote:
Clinton need only be remembered for three things:
1. Granting Clemancy to convicted Terrorists who Murdered American Citizens.
But granting clemency to those who subverted our constitution,
causing deaths in South America is Jim-Dandy okay to you?
So you admit that he did do it? Riteo.
That the FALN were convicted while in the act of making bombs,
an instrument whose only legitimate purpose was to commit homicide,
that the FALN did so over 130 times over a decade against the very people
he was supposed to protect. Is such consequence inconsequential?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/22/fbi.faln.01/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Little
more than a week after the
release from prison of 11 Puerto
Rican nationalists following a
grant of clemency by President Clinton, a top FBI official has told
Congress that the convicted FALN members are terrorists who
still pose a threat.
...
The FALN, translated as The Armed Forces of National
Liberation, claimed responsibility for or were blamed for 130
bombings, most of them in New York and Chicago, in the 1970s
and early 1980s.
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/puertorico/celebration.htm
Asked whether he felt his years in prison were worth it,
Rosa replied in Spanish: "Of course it was worth it; I
don't have any doubt."
2. Vandalizing the White House
Christ, of all the known stupidity available at fingers length,
you pick out the most improbable crap imaginable.
There is no evidence, save what some un-credible site like
NewsExLax spams us with, that has ever supported any claims of that silliness.
Do you still deny and dispute the GAO report?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
P6.
Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition.
p48.
$4850 to replace 30-64 keyboards.
Comments by Clinton Administation staff
"One fomer Clinton Administration official said that he found
reports of keyboards missing 'W' keys to be believable but
regrettable and indefensible..."
And to provide second source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A13372-2001Jun2¬Found=true
White House officials yesterday released a list of damage they say
was done by outgoing staffers of President Bill Clinton, including
obscene graffiti in six offices, a 20-inch-wide presidential seal ripped off a wall,
10 sliced telephone lines and 100 inoperable computer keyboards.
Again from the final report of the GAO:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
p61.
$6020 to replace missing telephone labels and reroute forwarded phones
...
114 hours of phone repair on Jan 20 and 78.5 hours for work on Jan21.
It goes on... and on... The point to realize is:
Had Mohammed Atta attacked on Jan20th they
wouldn't have even had the phones to call for help.
How *WAS* the Constitution served by such behavior?
3. Daring us to stop him.
Well, there you have it
On the contrary, the Clinton formulation was to heap one depravity
on top of another, daring his constituency to question his motives,
his reasons, his ultimate aim, for them to tolerate the intolerable
to defend the indefensible. His followers were not so much
colleagues as they were his trophies, so deep into the lies
that they could never admit the truth without destroying
their own careers, the people around them and the
constituency they purported to represent.
The consequence? a shattered nation, with cities ablaze
and bodies littering the streets.
This is Clinton's Bridge.
More Koolaid, More Cake!
And yet the crowd still cries out for more!
As if, consequence still be inconsequential.
http://www.attrition.org/gallery/politics/shattered_nation.jpg
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton
For Being There at the Pinnacle of our Civilization to ***** IT ALL AWAY.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=national&category=general%20news&story_id=130046&y=2002&m=2
US won't stay on top, says Clinton
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" babblies poor ManfredLoon the Oboe-sucker. |
05 Jul 2003 04:33:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:36:39 GMT, (MANFRED the heat seeking
OBOE) wrote:
In article rightwing wrote:
(MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE) wrote:
Clinton need only be remembered for three things:
1. Granting Clemancy to convicted Terrorists who Murdered American Citizens.
But granting clemency to those who subverted our constitution,
causing deaths in South America is Jim-Dandy okay to you?
So you admit that he did do it? Riteo.
He did what? He pardoned "some" whose crimes were't connected to the issue.
That the FALN were convicted while in the act of making bombs,
an instrument whose only legitimate purpose was to commit homicide,
that the FALN did so over 130 times over a decade against the very people
he was supposed to protect. Is such consequence inconsequential?
The convictions were unrelated to any bombing act.
a top FBI official has told
Congress that the convicted FALN members are terrorists who
still pose a threat.
Is that the same FBI that spent years investigating clinton and found nothing?
..
The FALN, translated as The Armed Forces of National
Liberation,
Still does't prove those that were pardoned were connected to any specific bombing.
2. Vandalizing the White House
Christ, of all the known stupidity available at fingers length,
you pick out the most improbable crap imaginable.
There is no evidence, save what some un-credible site like
NewsExLax spams us with, that has ever supported any claims of that silliness.
Do you still deny and dispute the GAO report?
The GAO report found, at best, a minuscule of "damage", and certainly no worse that at any
transition. There is also no way that you can prove that your rightwing, neo-nazi,
hate-filled assholes who stole the election didn't cause the damage. Considering the
hundreds of millions spent by your dimwits, a few pennies of damage should be embarrassing
as a cause of "outrage" you moron.
White House officials yesterday released a list of damage they say
was done by outgoing staffer
Oh, that would be the Bush Staff reporting it?
It goes on... and on... The point to realize is:
Had Mohammed Atta attacked on Jan20th they
wouldn't have even had the phones to call for help.
You could have looked in the nearest bunker where you lying right wing nazi president,
Cheney was cowering.
How *WAS* the Constitution served by such behavior?
You ask a question like that after a sham impeachment, a mindless, endless waste of
hundred of millions of tax dollars in investigations, your drooling california turnip
lying to congress, to america, subverting the constitution by selling arms to our enemies
Your sham "outrage" is one of your more pathetic personal characteristics.
3. Daring us to stop him.
Well, there you have it
On the contrary, the Clinton formulation was to heap one depravity
on top of another, daring his constituency to question his motives,
What "Depravity" So far, there is nothing remarkable done by clinton that was either
more immoral, more unethical, or illegal than the deliberate subversion of the
constitution by Ronnie Raygun and his criminal administration........which, BTW netted the
most felons, convictions, indictments, reprimands, except for a proven criminal
republican.....richard nixon.
his reasons, his ultimate aim, for them to tolerate the intolerable
to defend the indefensible.
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
WHat the *****, are you really that stupid
You don't get to spam a set of allegations that have absolutely NO evidence to
support them and then argue as if it were "truth".
His followers were not so much
colleagues as they were his trophies, so deep into the lies
that they could never admit the truth without destroying
their own careers, the people around them and the
constituency they purported to represent.
Fucking babbling fool.
The consequence? a shattered nation, with cities ablaze
and bodies littering the streets.
Reagan fomented, abided and promoted resurgent racism, greed, self-serving personal
entitlement, fanned the flames of bigotry, lied to America, ran our economy into the
ground, sold arms to our enemies (and lied to a Grand Jury, under oath), subverted the
constitution by deliberately (and criminally) breaking the law (congressional oversight of
foreign policy, and the boland amendment)......and you're whining about Clinton whipping
the ***** out of what is/was the closest thing to a neo nazi "cabal"?
You are stupid.
This is Clinton's Bridge.
His bridge was the finest economy in history, a decade of near-peace, a decade of hope,
tolerance.............compared to the bigotry, racism, homophobic, greed, and lying of
your rat-*****, coke-snorting idiot ( and I really mean an IDIOT) dumbya bush.
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton
For Being There at the Pinnacle of our Civilization to ***** IT ALL AWAY.
The loss of billions in Retirements of Americans, Loss of 30 Million jobs, the greed of
corporate backers of your rat-***** idiot, bankruptcies up, crime up, most civilized
nations hating us, LYING about WMD, Pissing backward on every campaign promise from "no
nation building" to "I'm a uniter not a divider", rise in intolerance, loss of civil
liberties under the most nazi/fascist-like government agency in history is a record of
your idiot/deserter/appointee your proud of?
No fucking wonder you only slither out to be stomped on so rarely.
=============================================================================
The Reagan Years:
How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,
.
|
|
|
| User: "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" |
05 Jul 2003 08:04:59 PM |
|
|
In article rightwing wrote:
(MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE) wrote:
In article rightwing wrote:
(MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE) wrote:
Clinton need only be remembered for three things:
1. Granting Clemancy to convicted Terrorists who Murdered American Citizens.
..
He did what? He pardoned "some" whose crimes were't connected to the issue.
...
The convictions were unrelated to any bombing act.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/22/fbi.faln.01/
They were convicted on a variety of charges,
ranging from bomb-making and conspiracy to armed robbery,
and given sentences ranging from 35 to 90 years; the activists
had served 14 to 19 years in prison.
...
Two of the 16 offered clemency rejected the deal.
As part of the clemency offer, the prisoners renounced
violence to achieve political goals
Are we to trust the fate of those we are sworn to protect
on the basis of the good-behavior of the Deliberate Evil?
What difference is there between those 'people' and
UNABOMBER/Ted Kascynski who was never caught in
the act of placing a bomb?
We need only remember Clinton for item #1
for the precidents in a world:
Where the Guilty are Rewarded,
Where the Innocent are Punished
and
Where the Depraved are championed on the basis of their Depravity.
Where anything goes for anyone who can get away with it,
and the only crime is the appearance of being judgemental,
of offending the fine-sensibilities of Deliberate Evil
and those who are actively, enthusiastically sponsoring them.
This is Clinton's Legacy.
"To leave now, we would send a message to terrorists
and other potential adversaries around the world that
they can change our policies by killing our people.
It would be open season on Americans."
-- Bill Clinton just before he pulled out of Somalia
http://www.thebatt.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/02/07/3c623dd0cd423?in_archive=1
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was the Poor freak-seeking OBOELOON "set-up" |
06 Jul 2003 09:07:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:04:59 GMT, (MANFRED the heat seeking
OBOE) wrote:
Are we to trust the fate of those we are sworn to protect
on the basis of the good-behavior of the Deliberate Evil?
"we did not sell arms to Iran"
"the economy is fine"
"I was out of the loop"
The convicted felons pardoned by your god-spanked, california turnip
represented the worst of constitutional subversion........a thousand times moreso that the
silly crap you whine about.
=============================================================================
The Reagan Years:
How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Was the Poor freak-seeking OBOELOON "set-up" |
07 Jul 2003 12:24:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:04:59 GMT, (MANFRED the
heat seeking OBOE) wrote:
Are we to trust the fate of those we are sworn to protect
on the basis of the good-behavior of the Deliberate Evil?
"we did not sell arms to Iran"
"the economy is fine"
"I was out of the loop"
The convicted felons pardoned by your god-spanked, california turnip
represented the worst of constitutional subversion........a thousand times
moreso that the silly crap you whine about.
It was not Reagan that pardoned his fellow conspirators, obstruction of
justice artistes and destroyers of evidence.
It was Bush Daddy.
Reagan was by this time so senile he couldn't remember anything.
Or so he claimed at the time. He was out of office by then.
=============================================================================
The Reagan Years:
How Soon We Forget Real Corruption Gleeful charges by Republicans
that Whitewater is comparable to Watergate and that the Clinton
Administration is more corrupt than any recent administration
are ludicrous when compared to the actual record of corruption
in the Reagan-Bush administration and when it is noted that the
charges against Clinton result from goings-on in Arkansas long
before he became President. With Reagan, scandals occured while
he was President. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Haynes
Johnson's book, "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in
the Reagan Years" (1991, Doubleday), chronicles the U.S.'s
fall from dominant world power to struggling debtor nation
during the Reagan years. Johnson says "two types of problems
typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years,
and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere.
One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run
amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale."
"By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had
been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject
of official investigations for official misconduct and/or
criminal violations. In terms of number of officials
involved, the record of his administration was the
worst ever." (P. 184).
"Reagan's customary response to instances of wrongdoing by aides
was to criticize those who brought the charges or to blame the
media that reported them." "Three great scandals stained the
Reagan record, and they all involved the age-old form of corruption
formed by the connection between money and politics. What
distinguished them in the Reagan years was the number of buyers
and sellers involved, and the amount of money there was to
be made. The sheer volume of both had multiplied beyond any
previous measure. Nothing better illustrated the problem
than a case that connected some of Reagan's closest associates,
a score of top government officials in several departments
and agencies,
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
07 Jul 2003 04:26:09 AM |
|
|
John R. Rybock <rybock@msn.com> wrote in
news:ja3bgv4coog0hjq2uou3apa4mu5n650qps@4ax.com:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:45:03 -0400,
wrote:
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
_____________________________________________________
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
_____________________________________________________
No. There were people who consistenty worked to find something,
anything on him. They could stir up accusations, but little had any
substance to it once you dug in deep. Look at the funding, and it all
traces to a small group of folks. They just kept prodding for years
and years, hoping Clinton would screw up. And he did. He should have
known better than to lie. However, it was a lie irrelevant to the
Paula Jones case, for which he was testifying for, and a matter that
had nothing to do with his job, so most Americans could not support
impeachment - that was one problem for this group - they stuck
together with like minded folks so long, they didn't have a pulse on
what the people would go for, so when they took their ultimate shot,
and needed the people to support them, that support wasn't there. It
was not planned ahead, it was simply a plan to keep digging because
SOMETHING had to come up.
Let's see.
Forget Monica for a moment.
His long time pal and lawyer committs "suicide". The office is
disinfected for days while the FBI are kept at bay. Afterwards a once
empty briefcase is "found" to contain a "suicide note" which sounds like
a DNC press release exonerating the Clintons from any and all
accusations.
At the same time, the Rose Law office is "vaccumed", co-incidently before
a raid by prosecutors in the Madision Savings and Loan scam.
His long time pal and second in command at Justice goes to jail. He stays
mum and suddenly receives $$$ in "consulting fees" for no proven work.
His long time pals and business partners go to jail.
His Democratic successor, the Governor of Arkansas goes to jail.
Supuenored "billing records" mysteriously appear on (what many still
don't know) was the eve of an application by Starr for a Search Warrant
on the White House.
Raw FBI files on Clinton's political enemies are found in the White
House. They were requested by a Clinton's lawyer, who subsequently
claimed to have no knowlege why his signature was on the request.
At the same time, Clinton's Secret police cabal and propagandists Terry
Leizner and drug crazed pornographer Larry Flynt mount a campaign against
all Clinton acuusers, including dozens of women who are catagorized as
"opportunist gold diggers", or GOP delusionary "dupes".
Clinton pays Paula nearly $1 million to drop her Appeal, only AFTER, a
court finds Clinton engaged in behaviour "designed to obstruct and thwart
the course of Justice", and fines him.
Get IT? Not guilty of a *****, but guilty of "behaviour designed to
obstruct and thwart the course of Justice".
Clinton is Impeached and narrowly escapes removal from Office, on a
mainly partisan vote by those who "believe Bill", **PRIOR TO** the judges
finding that he engaged in behaviour "designed to obstruct and thwart the
course of Justice".
The Arkansas Legal Authorities vote to disbar Clinton.
Clinton Plea bargains with his own Special Prosecutor to suspend his
License to Practice Law, and pay a fine to drop further investigation and
charges.
His succesor, Gore, is denied election in his own State of Arkansas. Gore
is repudiated in his own State of Tennessee, which sets the stage for a
dramatic and controversial Supreme Court Decision which effectively puts
Bush in the White House.
All about sex?
All a VRWC frame up?
Check the record and judge for yourselves.
Look up Clinton's bio in the Encyclopedia Americana for an historical
unbiased report of his Presidency.
You might also want to refresh your memory of the serial Independent
Council invesigations (appointed by Clinton's own Reno) into malfeasance
by Cabinet Officials, and the unprecendented number of Clinton lawyers
(who's lawyers had lawyers) who came and went in the years of the Clinton
Administration. It was no cheap or easy task to keep Clinton in power.
His reputation as "the come back kid" and as a the "ultimate political
survivor" comes not from his exoneration, but his totally amoral lack of
ability, and outright refusal to accept his failings and with grace.
As too does that of his wife, described by William Safire in the New York
Times, as a pathological liar, and who's lies and deceit are also on
record. for those who wish to refresh their memories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Pan" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
08 Jul 2003 12:34:14 AM |
|
|
Clinton got a 40 million dollar ***** from some fat chick named Monica..
he could had gone to NY and got the same thing for $40.
what an *****.. he set himself up for everything he got..and all the
bleeding heart liberals still think he's for the people WAKE UP...
--
"Wilson" <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B16A14E67CBheeley@217.32.252.50...
John R. Rybock <rybock@msn.com> wrote in
news:ja3bgv4coog0hjq2uou3apa4mu5n650qps@4ax.com:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:45:03 -0400,
wrote:
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
_____________________________________________________
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
_____________________________________________________
No. There were people who consistenty worked to find something,
anything on him. They could stir up accusations, but little had any
substance to it once you dug in deep. Look at the funding, and it all
traces to a small group of folks. They just kept prodding for years
and years, hoping Clinton would screw up. And he did. He should have
known better than to lie. However, it was a lie irrelevant to the
Paula Jones case, for which he was testifying for, and a matter that
had nothing to do with his job, so most Americans could not support
impeachment - that was one problem for this group - they stuck
together with like minded folks so long, they didn't have a pulse on
what the people would go for, so when they took their ultimate shot,
and needed the people to support them, that support wasn't there. It
was not planned ahead, it was simply a plan to keep digging because
SOMETHING had to come up.
Let's see.
Forget Monica for a moment.
His long time pal and lawyer committs "suicide". The office is
disinfected for days while the FBI are kept at bay. Afterwards a once
empty briefcase is "found" to contain a "suicide note" which sounds like
a DNC press release exonerating the Clintons from any and all
accusations.
At the same time, the Rose Law office is "vaccumed", co-incidently before
a raid by prosecutors in the Madision Savings and Loan scam.
His long time pal and second in command at Justice goes to jail. He stays
mum and suddenly receives $$$ in "consulting fees" for no proven work.
His long time pals and business partners go to jail.
His Democratic successor, the Governor of Arkansas goes to jail.
Supuenored "billing records" mysteriously appear on (what many still
don't know) was the eve of an application by Starr for a Search Warrant
on the White House.
Raw FBI files on Clinton's political enemies are found in the White
House. They were requested by a Clinton's lawyer, who subsequently
claimed to have no knowlege why his signature was on the request.
At the same time, Clinton's Secret police cabal and propagandists Terry
Leizner and drug crazed pornographer Larry Flynt mount a campaign against
all Clinton acuusers, including dozens of women who are catagorized as
"opportunist gold diggers", or GOP delusionary "dupes".
Clinton pays Paula nearly $1 million to drop her Appeal, only AFTER, a
court finds Clinton engaged in behaviour "designed to obstruct and thwart
the course of Justice", and fines him.
Get IT? Not guilty of a *****, but guilty of "behaviour designed to
obstruct and thwart the course of Justice".
Clinton is Impeached and narrowly escapes removal from Office, on a
mainly partisan vote by those who "believe Bill", **PRIOR TO** the judges
finding that he engaged in behaviour "designed to obstruct and thwart the
course of Justice".
The Arkansas Legal Authorities vote to disbar Clinton.
Clinton Plea bargains with his own Special Prosecutor to suspend his
License to Practice Law, and pay a fine to drop further investigation and
charges.
His succesor, Gore, is denied election in his own State of Arkansas. Gore
is repudiated in his own State of Tennessee, which sets the stage for a
dramatic and controversial Supreme Court Decision which effectively puts
Bush in the White House.
All about sex?
All a VRWC frame up?
Check the record and judge for yourselves.
Look up Clinton's bio in the Encyclopedia Americana for an historical
unbiased report of his Presidency.
You might also want to refresh your memory of the serial Independent
Council invesigations (appointed by Clinton's own Reno) into malfeasance
by Cabinet Officials, and the unprecendented number of Clinton lawyers
(who's lawyers had lawyers) who came and went in the years of the Clinton
Administration. It was no cheap or easy task to keep Clinton in power.
His reputation as "the come back kid" and as a the "ultimate political
survivor" comes not from his exoneration, but his totally amoral lack of
ability, and outright refusal to accept his failings and with grace.
As too does that of his wife, described by William Safire in the New York
Times, as a pathological liar, and who's lies and deceit are also on
record. for those who wish to refresh their memories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hit1Hard" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
08 Jul 2003 01:57:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:14 -0400, Peter Pan wrote:
Clinton got a 40 million dollar ***** from some fat chick named
Monica.. he could had gone to NY and got the same thing for $40. what an
*****.. he set himself up for everything he got..and all the bleeding
heart liberals still think he's for the people WAKE UP...
More important:
Why couldn't he go home to satisfy that need...
Or why is it so important to be able to judge what consenting adults do in their
sexlife.
--
Hit1Hard.
An Osho Zen Tarot rated email :
Transformation
Major Arcana XII
http://www.osho.com/magazine/tarot/TarotCardNew.cfm?All=Yes&Nr=14
http://www.osho.com/magazine/tarot/picCards/zen014Transformation.jpg
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed. --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of
Independence, 1776.
<Spam Shredder Block>
e thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way.
Believe us, some have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So
<Spam Shredder Block>
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
08 Jul 2003 11:45:49 AM |
|
|
"Hit1Hard" <Hit.One.Hard@iaehv.nl> wrote in message
news:bedmln$40rg$1@news3.infoave.net...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:14 -0400, Peter Pan wrote:
Clinton got a 40 million dollar ***** from some fat chick named
Monica.. he could had gone to NY and got the same thing for $40. what an
*****.. he set himself up for everything he got..and all the bleeding
heart liberals still think he's for the people WAKE UP...
More important:
Why couldn't he go home to satisfy that need...
Would you trust your member in Hillary's mouth?
eric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "no" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
08 Jul 2003 09:35:59 PM |
|
|
eric davis wrote in message ...
"Hit1Hard" <Hit.One.Hard@iaehv.nl> wrote in message
news:bedmln$40rg$1@news3.infoave.net...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:14 -0400, Peter Pan wrote:
Clinton got a 40 million dollar ***** from some fat chick named
Monica.. he could had gone to NY and got the same thing for $40. what
an
*****.. he set himself up for everything he got..and all the bleeding
heart liberals still think he's for the people WAKE UP...
More important:
Why couldn't he go home to satisfy that need...
Would you trust your member in Hillary's mouth?
Chelsea seems like a good kid. Only headlines she makes are in tabloids.
eric.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
08 Jul 2003 04:09:02 AM |
|
|
Hit1Hard <Hit.One.Hard@iaehv.nl> wrote in
news:bedmln$40rg$1@news3.infoave.net:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:34:14 -0400, Peter Pan wrote:
Clinton got a 40 million dollar ***** from some fat chick named
Monica.. he could had gone to NY and got the same thing for $40. what
an *****.. he set himself up for everything he got..and all the
bleeding heart liberals still think he's for the people WAKE
UP...
More important:
Why couldn't he go home to satisfy that need...
Or why is it so important to be able to judge what consenting adults
do in their sexlife.
Nothing wrong with a good *****. Even Democrat Presidents should get
them.
"If I could have remembered the conversation, I would say that up until
now, I thought that sigh of relief was because I agreed to support him on
some issue.-- Former representative Jim Chapman (D-Tex.), who, according
to the Starr report, was one of three members of Congress with whom
President Clinton spoke on the phone while being serviced sexually by
Monica Lewinsky.
But, as another Democrat complains:
"Perjury is not excused by an apology compelled by overwhelming evidence
and delivered under pressure. The President entered into a morally
repugnant relationship, he lied under oath and he almost certainly used
government resources and employment opportunities to encourage Monica
Lewinsky's silence. This is no longer a question of private morality or
political popularity. Certainly, we could spare the country a great deal
of pain by abandoning the rule of law. That's too high a price. With
great sadness, I have concluded that President Clinton should resign or
face impeachment." -- Rep. Paul McHale (D-Pa.), 8/18/98
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
04 Jul 2003 06:37:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:25:46 -0400, John R. Rybock <rybock@msn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:45:03 -0400, wrote:
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
Did an outside group plan it, long before it happened ?
No.
Wrong
It WAS planned for a long time.....but under different scenarios. Cliff Harris and others
in AK had been circulating stories and lies for years.........all without any substance
but used as smear material against clinton. Jerry Falwell also used the stories and lies
(and paid the witnesses) in the "clinton Chronicles" tape
Mary Matalin was "offered" those "stories and lies" by the AK group (refused) and were
dormant until 1995 and the republican shutdown.
CPAC held a "conference" (loosely defined) to figure out how to stop the PR damage.
(GOP fortunes were in single digits at the time). William Bennett Jr (CPAC) suggested
that: "a question of character" might be enough to get clinton........whereby Richard
Scaife (CPAC) Authorized a $2 million dollar payment to Emmett Tyrell Jr (American
Spectator) for the Jones article (paid witnesses, etc).
And he did. He should have known better than to lie.
Half right.
His "lie" was a strict definitive answer to the Camerata definition of "sexual relations".
It is "legal truth" to deny having "sexual relations" (with that woman) when, in fact,
Camerata refused to use the standard legal definition. Clinton was legally allowed to
answer "No".
By "parsing" the legal answer, he did, in fact, set himself up for a horrendous spin
attack by the right claiming that he "lied" simply because THEY said that any denial would
be 'morally" false.
However, it was a lie
irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, for which he was testifying for, and a matter that had nothing
to do with his job,
Don't forget to mention that Clinton Won the Jones v Clinton case.
...... so most Americans could not support impeachment - that was one problem for this
group - they stuck together with like minded folks so long, they didn't have a pulse on what the
people would go for, so when they took their ultimate shot, and needed the people to support them,
that support wasn't there.
Most Americans did not support impeachment because of the circumstances surrounding those
who were calling for impeachment. Their adultery (and in a few cases, perjury) made it
hard for most americans to accept their "take"
Secondly, (and most important) is that the Hyde committee was told in 1997 (by Sen Lott)
that NO conviction would happen IF the charges were related to Jones (sex), and by the
late spring (after months of haranguing Lewinsky failed to get anything) Starr could only
offer the Hyde committee a series of "theoretical" offenses that "Might" be "impeachable.
Hyde, by July, was fighting time because of the Nov elections. His right wing base was
DEMANDING impeachment, (even gingrich was against it), Starr had NO witness to ANY crime.
BTW, the Starr report was intended (by Starr) to be a STARTING place for the HJC to begin
an "inquiry" and setting up the hearings for determining IF any "impeachable offenses"
warranted the action.
None, of course, were ever found......and the HJC never defined what a "misdemeanor" was
in order to go ahead with the action
It was not planned ahead, it was simply a plan to keep digging because
SOMETHING had to come up.
Partially correct.
Bob Barr was calling for impeachment in early 1993 after Clinton taking office. The
Drive of Conservative republicans to impeach clinton in the first year of his first term
was well documented.
Finally, it has also been well established that the pressure of multiple lawsuits was
designed to discredit and financially harass Clinton from 1992 onward.
Most of the suits were funded by CPAC and/or CPAC member Scaife. He funneled $3 through
the Heritage Foundation, $1.3 Million through the firm that Jones first hired, $2 million
through CPAC to the American Spectator, $4 Million to Judicial Watch, $2.5 million
through the Southeastern Legal foundation, and over $15 million through a dozen or so
other rightwing think tanks........all of which were engaged in legal harassment of the
Clintons.
William Bennett laughed when asked if CPAC was engaging in a "conspiracy".........replied:
"can you prove it's for "evil intent"?
"The commandments carry no internal evidence of
divinity with them; they contain some good moral
precetps, such as any man qualified to be a
law-giver, or a legislator, cold produce himself,
whithout any recourse to supernatural intervention"
Thomas Paine; FOUNDER
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was President Clinton "set-up" ? |
29 Jun 2003 03:38:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:45:03 -0400, wrote:
Was President Clinton "set-up" ?
Yep.
Cliff Harris from AK politics was part of a state "cabal" that hated clinton. They had
circulated stories about Clinton during his AK days, tons of them that no one really paid
any attention to
When Clinton was kicking Rightwing ***** in 1995, and the republicans shutdown government,
the GOP poll numbers dropped to Single digit popularity.
CPAC members decided to fund the American Spectator and resurrect some of the stories.
William Bennett had told members that if they could find an issue that would question
"clintons character" they might be able to shift attention from the beating they were
taking, and divert the electorate's attention. The Spectator article was written and
deliberately leaked ........and Jones was paraded at the CPAC meeting.
When Bob Dole was losing, Mary Matalin was offered the same stories and lies to use
against Clinton in the 1996 campaign. She and Dole refused. Then Jerry Falwell produced
the "Clinton Chronicles" which used paid "witnesses".
The article about Jones was later proven false. Jones lost her civil suit (originally),
most of the so-called witnesses recanted their testimony.
Clinton kept vetoing the Budget's gingrich was passing and finally the right wing base was
ready to revolt. That left only one solution........a sham impeachment.
---------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chris01@ameritech.net> wrote:
Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.
No, MORTONLOON
All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, *****-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.
Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
