On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:33:53 -0600, Click@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>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.
|
