(FYI: Keep it on the blog. I have hundreds of emails in my inbox on any given day)
Here's a snippet from one:
Which in turn leads me to wonder further, whether any of these things of which you complain bitterly, when done by Bush et al., would bother you at all, if only Hillary were in office doing these selfsame things to Republicans.What the emailer seemingly fails to remember is that Hillary and Bill Clinton were investigated over "Filegate" (and everything else they ever did or said in office or supposedly did or said in office or supposedly did or said before they took office -- I'm quite certain Ken Star must have a video of a colonoscopy from one or both of them that he views nightly with some fava beans and a nice Chianti) and were cleared of all charges:
Here's a hint: she already has, and I don't think you guys so much as whispered a word, when her hireling bozos Livingstone and Marceca were pawing through people's raw FBI files. You guys bull your necks over a NY Times article -- like *they* had any credibility left -- about the NSA, and you complain that you don't like the NSA dumping "raw" intelligence about honest people on the FBI (they allege), but you never complained when Hillary's goons pulled "raw" intelligence from the FBI files to cull for her amusement, information, and ultimate use. Go on, prove me wrong, document that you complained about Hillary's calling for the FBI files her guys had. You can do it -- just show me the articles, show me the quotes, scan in an old letter. Show me her justification. Anything. Anything at all.
Independent Counsel: No 'substantial and credible' evidence of Clinton involvement in 'Filegate'So, let's see now:
March 16, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)WASHINGTON (CNN) -- There is "no substantial and credible evidence" that President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton sought confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks of former GOP White House personnel, according to a report filed Thursday by Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray's office.
In a statement, Ray's office said that no substantial and credible exists to implicate any other senior White House official in the FBI background files controversy that came to be known as "Filegate," and that no prosecutions would be pursued. It also said prosecution was not warranted after an investigation into whether former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified falsely to Congress on the matter in 1996.
[snip]
The Government Reform and Oversight Committee's report, released in the autumn of 1996, reached similar conclusions, though it blasted the Clinton White House for its "cavalier approach" to security. Livingstone resigned his post soon after the scandal broke.
Compare that to this:
BIG FAT HYPOCRITES
7 comments:
i've been trying( calmly) for years to explain this to friends that insist that the clintons ( take your pick) are thieves, rapists, gay/straight, thieves, murderers and probably puppy stranglers!!!
i tell them that a government that really looked as hard and as carefully as they could, spending millions of our money could only find some extramarital sex! that's it, that's all. so they dragged that all out (a thing which should have been between the people involved) yet, because they threw anything and everything, every rumor, every crackpot scenerio at us, there are some that still insist that there must be SOMETHING.
no, like them or hate them, there weren't any nuke secrets sold to china, no murders, no aliens from the planet mars, nothing, except a lot of money wasted and a lot of time better spent at governmental things. sad.
But there was a blow job!!!
yeah, whoopie, some people get their jollies investigating things like that, bunch of guys that like to read about stuff! just wish they used their own money to do it, blow job, big deal, not like a war or anything huh? ; )
"Which in turn leads me to wonder further, whether any of these things of which you complain bitterly, when done by Bush et al., would bother you at all, if only Hillary were in office doing these selfsame things to Republicans...."
That's like asking if the neocon thugs would want President Hillary to have the same "authority" they're so eager to grant to Bush.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's completely different. After all, there was a blowjob involved.
Your average neocon have the intellect of a stone. That's why they're Bush supporters.
You are being cruel to stones. And stones have better ethics, too.
What Maria snipped from my e-mail was, it is incontrovertible fact that Livingstone and Marceca had the files. They possessed that which it was unlawful for them to possess.
Your and her entire evasion revolves around the inability of the special prosecutor to say that Bill and Hillary, severally or jointly, reviewed the files. But the laws on agency are clear. Once Craig Livingstone received the files, Hillary received the files.
Oh.......and it wasn't about "a blow job," either. It was about obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to the People. It doesn't matter that you diehards wanted Slick to lie to you, that you esteemed and cherished his ability to lie as a tactical asset, that his lying and deceptiveness made him your champion.
It doesn't matter that you were as corrupt as he was. He lied under oath. Period.
Bush broke the law. Period
Post a Comment