On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:32:20 -0600, Click@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:33:53 -0600, Click@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>>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.
|
