On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:04:44 GMT, Ken
<user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Click@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 22:51:03 -0500, "SuperDummy"
>> <dober81@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> "I did not have *** with that woman," Bill Clinton.
>>
>> Clinton never said that.
>>
>
> God, another student of Clinton!!!! I believe he said, "I did not have
>***ual relations with that woman."
Exactly !
Now don't you feel a LITTLE better for admitting the
truth?
> Now if you are one who is looking
>for ANY means possible to defend the indefensible, you could say
>"Clinton never said that."
Since Clinton Never said that:
Why don't YOU explain why clinton was asked anything
related to Lewinsky, and why it wasn't relevant to the
Jones case?
Why don't YOU explain why, after Kenny Starr "retired"
he 'un-retired" and began to investigate a "crime" that
wouldn't happen for 7 months "in the future"?
Why don't YOU explain why Judge Wright said: "IF you
insist on using "that definition", he (clinton) has a
LEGAL RIGHT to deny it.
Why don't YOU explain that after $130 MILLION dollars
in investigations, that NO evidence of ANY kind could
sup****t any claim that Clinton commited a crime
Why don't YOU explain why Kenny Starr Hisself, said:
"My referral was NOT to be used as evidence that an
impeachable offense occurred......that it was base on
THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES.....and was meant to be a
"Starting point" to investigate by the HJC
Why don't YOU explain why YOU think that anyone accused
of a Civil tort should OPT to pay $2-4 million for what
they could SETTLE For for pennies on the dollar
Why don't YOU explain why Jones LOST here civil action,
KEnnyLoon
Make me laugh at you more.
>But to most every other person who is not
>trying to escape prosecution by finding some obscure meaning of a word
>that the listener did not think of, you would think he was denying that
>he had an affair. It just goes to show what a slimy president he was.
You stupid ****wit
Clinton could NOT have been prosecuted for anything
connected with the Jones Civil action because it was:
a) a Civil case
b) about an NON-RELEVANT issue
c) Immaterial to the Jones suit
but MOST im****tant, recognized by 80% of the American
people as a vicious smear (concerted effort) to counter
his ass-kicking he was giving republicans.
Finally, precisely because the entire matter was
predicated on THEORETICAL "perjury" (Not provable),
and because Clinton WON the Jones civil suit, NONE of
the OIC's (including Starr) Would have EVER brought it
before the GJ
There was NO "perjury"----denial of a NEW and UNIQUE
legal definition is acceptable.
Judge Wright Said so.
|
