Clinton Lied?
Centurion
16 Jul 00 22:50, George Lagergren wrote to Centurion:
GL> Quoting Centurion to Randal Byrd 07-06-00 15:05
BS>>>Really??? Name *one* crime he has been *convicted* of John... just
BS>>>one.
VH>>> By paying the $90,000, he has admitted -- and it is legally
VH>>> adjudicated -- that he lied under oath and obstructed justice.
RB>> Complete and utter bull, which explains your inability to show that
RB>> he ever admitted such a thing. :)
RB>> Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are both felonies. It is
RB>> inconceivable that Starr would have let Clinton get away with
RB>> committing felonies.
Ce>> Starr didn't. He presented the facts and the House impeached
Ce>> Clinton. The Senate failed to convict him due to a lack of backbone by
Ce>> the Democrats. That's in the history books whether you like it or
Ce>> not. So is the fact of what Vern said. Deal with it.
GL> Not so. Even five of the fifty-five Repub Senators voted
GL> "Not Guilty."
On one of the four specifications. The point is, however, that only twelve
Democrats had to vote with the Republicans to get it done. There weren't even
twelve good men on the Dem side who had the guts to stand up for what they knew
was right.
Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.
*----- GratisNet - Tulsa, OK -----*
GEORGE LAGERGREN
Quoting Centurion to George Lagergren 07-17-00 23:38
RB>> Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are both felonies. It is
RB>> inconceivable that Starr would have let Clinton get away with
RB>> committing felonies.
Ce>> Starr didn't. He presented the facts and the House impeached
Ce>> Clinton. The Senate failed to convict him due to a lack of backbone by
Ce>> the Democrats. That's in the history books whether you like it or
Ce>> not. So is the fact of what Vern said. Deal with it.
GL> Not so. Even five of the fifty-five Repub Senators voted
GL> "Not Guilty."
Ce> On one of the four specifications. The point is, however, that only
Ce> twelve Democrats had to vote with the Republicans to get it done.
Ce> There weren't even twelve good men on the Dem side who had the guts to
Ce> stand up for what they knew was right.
With only fifty guilty votes, there was seventeen additional Dem
votes needed for conviction - quite a tall order.
Clinton was the first prez impeached since the direct election
of senators in 1913.
Also, remember the AoI charges was basically sexual lying (adultery)
and sexual lying under oath (happens all the time in divorce
courts). Since society is degenerate with high rates of
adultery and divorce, there was no way that 67% of the Senate
would vote to convict Clinton. Society (voters) looked upon
the two AoIs as minor charges, not worthy to kick out a prez.
And if the Repubs lose control of the House in 2000, impeachment
of a prez on relatively minor charges as a method to please a
political party's voter base will not happen in the future.
After all, the two Repub impeachment attempts have both been
failures in obtaining Senate convictions.
.. "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." 17 Jul 00 23:53
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
Centurion
18 Jul 00 22:31, GEORGE LAGERGREN wrote to CENTURION:
GL> Quoting Centurion to George Lagergren 07-17-00 23:38
RB>>> Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are both felonies. It is
RB>>> inconceivable that Starr would have let Clinton get away with
RB>>> committing felonies.
Ce>>> Starr didn't. He presented the facts and the House impeached
Ce>>> Clinton. The Senate failed to convict him due to a lack of backbone
Ce>>> by the Democrats. That's in the history books whether you like it
Ce>>> or not. So is the fact of what Vern said. Deal with it.
GL>> Not so. Even five of the fifty-five Repub Senators voted
GL>> "Not Guilty."
Ce>> On one of the four specifications. The point is, however, that only
Ce>> twelve Democrats had to vote with the Republicans to get it done.
Ce>> There weren't even twelve good men on the Dem side who had the guts
Ce>> to stand up for what they knew was right.
GL> With only fifty guilty votes, there was seventeen additional Dem
GL> votes needed for conviction - quite a tall order.
Had any of the Dems voted yes, that would have changed the entire tenor of
things and likely kindled a fire under those who just went with the pack.
GL> Clinton was the first prez impeached since the direct election
GL> of senators in 1913.
He was the first ELECTED president to be impeached. That has nothing to do
with how senators are elected.
GL> Also, remember the AoI charges was basically sexual lying
GL> (adultery)
GL> and sexual lying under oath (happens all the time in divorce
GL> courts). Since society is degenerate with high rates of
GL> adultery and divorce, there was no way that 67% of the Senate
GL> would vote to convict Clinton. Society (voters) looked upon
GL> the two AoIs as minor charges, not worthy to kick out a prez.
George, are you stupid, or just willfully ignorant? Sex had nothing to do with
it. How many times do you have to told that? He was impeached for perjury,
abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. Period. What the public thinks
isn't of consequence. Those senators took an oath to uphold the
Constitution--the LAW of the land--and failed miserably to carry out that oath.
GL> And if the Repubs lose control of the House in 2000, impeachment
GL> of a prez on relatively minor charges as a method to please a
GL> political party's voter base will not happen in the future.
First, they aren't going to lose the House. Second, the charges were not
minor, and it had nothing to do with pleasing anybody's voter base.
GL> After all, the two Repub impeachment attempts have both been
GL> failures in obtaining Senate convictions.
The first one only failed by one vote. At least the senators in Johnson's day
voted based on what they thought, and not as a party.
Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.
Dan Kimmel
"Centurion" <com.gratisnet.p99@centurion> wrote in message
news:0010...@GratisNet.com...
>
> George, are you stupid, or just willfully ignorant? Sex had nothing to do
with
> it. How many times do you have to told that? He was impeached for
perjury,
> abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. Period. What the public
thinks
> isn't of consequence. Those senators took an oath to uphold the
> Constitution--the LAW of the land--and failed miserably to carry out that
oath.
So little has changed here. The rightwingnuts are as blind as ever. Of
course the impeachment had EVERYTHING to do with sex. The House Republicans
were a lynching part looking for ANY reason to hang President Clinton. The
charges had nothing whatsoever to do with "abuse of power" and the perjury
and obstruction of charges were easily shot down. The Senate did its duty
admirably and seriously. It is the House Republicans who should hang their
heads in shame for the abusing the Constitution to try to undo elections
they could not win by other means.
> GL> And if the Repubs lose control of the House in 2000, impeachment
> GL> of a prez on relatively minor charges as a method to please a
> GL> political party's voter base will not happen in the future.
>
> First, they aren't going to lose the House. Second, the charges were not
> minor, and it had nothing to do with pleasing anybody's voter base.
It seems likely they will lose the House. That's why the House managers
were nearly all from
safe seats. The one who wasn't -- from California -- is a goner. People
are fed up with the extremist do-nothing Republican Congress. That's why
the majority in the House has shrunk with each election, with the '98 losses
defying all historical trends for the party out of executive power.
> GL> After all, the two Repub impeachment attempts have both been
> GL> failures in obtaining Senate convictions.
>
> The first one only failed by one vote. At least the senators in Johnson's
day
> voted based on what they thought, and not as a party.
Yes, it's clear that most of the Republicans voted on party lines rather
than the facts. There is a reason that even Junior Bush is running
screaming from the embrace of scum like DeLay, Armey and Lott.
EARL CROASMUN
-> the impeachment had EVERYTHING to do with sex. The House Republicans
-> were a lynching part looking for ANY reason to hang President Clinton. The
-> charges had nothing whatsoever to do with "abuse of power" and the perjury
-> and obstruction of charges were easily shot down.
The charges of perjury and obstruction were not "shot down." They were
swept under the carpet. Of the 50 senators who voted to acquit on the 50-50
vote, how many of them just came right out and said that Clinton did nothing
wrong? How many of them said "well, he may have done it, BUT....?"
As for the old "sex" thing, here's an easy question for you. If, under
oath, he had NEVER DENIED having a sexual affair, on what grounds would he have
been impeached?
If he had sex, but then told the TRUTH about it, he would still be as
disgraced and disgraceful as he is today, but he would not have been impeached.
Dan Kimmel
"EARL CROASMUN" <org.fidonet.p0...@EARL.CROASMUN> wrote in
message news:0010...@GratisNet.com...
>
>
> -> the impeachment had EVERYTHING to do with sex. The House Republicans
> -> were a lynching part looking for ANY reason to hang President Clinton.
The
> -> charges had nothing whatsoever to do with "abuse of power" and the
perjury
> -> and obstruction of charges were easily shot down.
>
> The charges of perjury and obstruction were not "shot down." They were
> swept under the carpet. Of the 50 senators who voted to acquit on the
50-50
> vote, how many of them just came right out and said that Clinton did
nothing
> wrong? How many of them said "well, he may have done it, BUT....?"
They were shot down. An acquittal is an acquittal is an acquittal. The
Constitution does not provide for the "Scottish verdict." (I.e., "not
proven.")
> As for the old "sex" thing, here's an easy question for you. If, under
> oath, he had NEVER DENIED having a sexual affair, on what grounds would he
have
> been impeached?
Like very many people he declined to include oral sex as "having a sexual
affair." A survey released at the height of this nonsense showed a majority
agreeing with him. Was he being cute? Sure. Was he engaging in "abuse of
power" or "perjury" or "obstruction of justice?" Most assuredly not.
> If he had sex, but then told the TRUTH about it, he would still be as
> disgraced and disgraceful as he is today, but he would not have been
impeached.
On the contrary, he just would have been charged with something else. This
was about "getting" President Clinton. The comparison with the solemnity
when Congress had to investigate ACTUAL criminality in the Oval Office
during the Nixon years couldn't be more telling.
EARL CROASMUN
-> > If he had sex, but then told the TRUTH about it, he would still be as
-> > disgraced and disgraceful as he is today, but he would not have been
-> impeached.
-> On the contrary, he just would have been charged with something else.
What? He would have been impeached for telling the truth? Any reasonable
person would have just admitted that he was impeached because of perjury and
obstruction of justice, not because of sex per se.
-> Like very many people he declined to include oral sex as "having a sexual
-> affair." A survey released at the height of this nonsense showed a majority
-> agreeing with him. Was he being cute? Sure. Was he engaging in "abuse of
-> power" or "perjury" or "obstruction of justice?" Most assuredly not.
That was the defense for the phrase "sexual relations." I say no such
defense, and no such study, relating to his answers about a "sexual affair."
-> On the contrary, he just would have been charged with something else. This
-> was about "getting" President Clinton. The comparison with the solemnity
-> when Congress had to investigate ACTUAL criminality in the Oval Office
-> during the Nixon years couldn't be more telling.
Solemn? You really think Congress was "solemn" in going after Nixon
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
Dan Kimmel
>
>
> -> > If he had sex, but then told the TRUTH about it, he would still be as
> -> > disgraced and disgraceful as he is today, but he would not have been
> -> impeached.
>
> -> On the contrary, he just would have been charged with something else.
>
> What? He would have been impeached for telling the truth?
No, he would have been impeached on some other trumped up charge. Starr was
leading a lynch mob where they had already chosen the victim and simply had
to find ANY reason to tie the noose.
> Any reasonable
> person would have just admitted that he was impeached because of perjury
and
> obstruction of justice, not because of sex per se.
Any reasonable person who wasn't blinded by ideology and bitter hatred of
the Clintons would admit this was about partisan politics and had nothing
whatsoever to do with "perjury" or "obstruction of justice."
> -> Like very many people he declined to include oral sex as "having a
sexual
> -> affair." A survey released at the height of this nonsense showed a
majority
>
> -> agreeing with him. Was he being cute? Sure. Was he engaging in
"abuse of
> -> power" or "perjury" or "obstruction of justice?" Most assuredly not.
>
> That was the defense for the phrase "sexual relations." I say no such
> defense, and no such study, relating to his answers about a "sexual
affair."
As noted above, this was about sex -- pure and simple, the latter because we
were dealing with rightwingnuts who were hungry for vengeance and didn't
give a damn about the Constitution. Legally speaking the bogus impeachment
should have ended with the outgoing Congress and the Senate should have
refused to hold a trial altogether.
> -> On the contrary, he just would have been charged with something else.
This
> -> was about "getting" President Clinton. The comparison with the
solemnity
> -> when Congress had to investigate ACTUAL criminality in the Oval Office
> -> during the Nixon years couldn't be more telling.
>
> Solemn? You really think Congress was "solemn" in going after Nixon
Indeed. Perhaps you weren't old enough -- or even born yet -- to remember.
Peter Rodino was no Henry Hyde, or Bob Barr for that matter.
EARL CROASMUN
-> > What? He would have been impeached for telling the truth?
-> No, he would have been impeached on some other trumped up charge. Starr was
-> leading a lynch mob where they had already chosen the victim and simply had
-> to find ANY reason to tie the noose.
A bizarre, unsupported claim that reveals a paranoid world view. The
charges were not "trumped up," and in fact a good number of the Senators who
voted to acquit agreed that he was gulity of what he was charged with. They
just didn't want him out of office. If there had been other equally well
supported impeachable offenses, they would have been charged as well. A series
of offenses would have increased the chance of conviction. Do you REALLY
think that getting impeached on X PRECLUDES getting impeached on Y or Z? For
that matter, do you really believe that Starr had the power to impeach
anyone? There are 435 votes in the House, and Starr casts zero of them
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to Ed Connell <=- 07-23-00 12:38
EC> the evidence and clearly gave Clinton a pass. Even
RB> The House Managers self-destructed when their weak case was
RB> submitted to examination.
I wonder if any independent study has been done to determine
whether the House Managers were able to prove during the Senate
trial any charge made in the Hous AoIs?
.. "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." 23 Jul 00 12:41
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to Mimi Weasel <=- 07-23-00 12:56
MW> One would think that anyone with more than 3 functioning neurons would
MW> know that _IF_ Starr could have found _ANY_ legal charge to hang on
MW> the President, but the fact that he didn't even try with this one is
MW> clearly evidence to thinking people (as opposed to Limbots and
MW> CONservatives) that the President did no such thing.
RB> Mimi:,
RB> It's obvious to you and me that Starr couldn't show that Clinton
RB> lied under oath. But then you and I aren't consumed by an irrational
RB> hatred of the President of the United States.
If Starr had no proof that Clinton lied under oath, on what rational
grounds did the House use to approve two AoI against Clinton?
Or did the House impeach him only because they dis-approved on
the way Clinton made creative use of the English language?
RB> ... Bush flunked his drug test....uh-oh!!!
IMHO, GWB will not be discussing his service in the Texas Air
Nat'l Guard during the upcoming prez election season.
Especially if he "dis-appeared for service" for up to 18 months
during his tour of duty.
.. End of message 23 Jul 00 13:02
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to Ed Connell <=- 07-23-00 13:08
RB> You don't like it that your people were unable to force him to say
RB> things you hoped to force him to say, so you attack his truthful
RB> answers as "untrustworthy." Sour grapes. :)
EC> The judge, who was present, described Bill Clinton's
EC> performance as an attempt to obstruct justice.
RB> And if she really believed that Clinton had attempted to obstruct
RB> justice, she'd have ordered him bound over on felony charges.
RB> But she just smeared him with an inappropriate civil contempt charge
RB> instead....which meant she didn't have to present a case; didn't have
RB> to call witnesses; didn't have to formulate a reasoned argument to
RB> back her accusations. It has all the earmarks of a politcal rather
RB> than justice motivated act by the judge.
IOW, the judge made a civil comtempt charge against Clinton
in order to cover her ass that she was a bad judge by not
insisting on the words "sexual contact" during the Jones
disposition?
.. End of message 23 Jul 00 13:09
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to Tim Richardson <=- 07-23-00 13:30
CD>"The president responded to plaintiffs' questions by giving false,
CD>misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct
CD>the judicial process."
CD> Judge Susan Webber Wright
TR> Um, thats sort of `legalese' for "Liar Liar, yer pants are
TR> on fire!"
RB> Actually it's legalese for "Damn, you're one smart cookie and escaped
RB> our perjury trap! But since I'm a judge and I can cite people for
RB> contempt for stupid stuff like chewing gum in my courtroom if I want
RB> to, I'll just further harass you by throwing this silly contempt
RB> at you just because you made me look stupid."
The judge had to cover up the fact that she was a bad/stupid judge
for her failure to insist that the words "sexual contact" be
used during the Jones disposition?
.. End of message 23 Jul 00 13:32
Charles Doll
DK->Like very many people he declined to include oral sex as "having a sexual
DK->affair." A survey released at the height of this nonsense showed a majorit
He didn't have to. The definitions covered every aspect of his
lying.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occa
of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touch
through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On
President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the Pr
genital-to-genital contact.(42)
[A] person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in o
contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of an
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . "Contact" means inten
directly or through clothing.(29)
-!-
ş SLMR 2.1a ş Forgive us for shooting those who trespass against us.
Randal Byrd
FS> His common name in Arkansas describes the Bill Clinton we
FS> all know and (don't) love: "Slick Willie"!
FS> .
Actually his "common name in Arkansas" is Bill Clinton.
Those who can't engage in reasoned discourse, though, resort
to the sort of childish name-calling you mentioned here.
.. Bush flunked his drug test....uh-oh!!!
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
Randal Byrd
RB> It's obvious to you and me that Starr couldn't show that Clinton
RB> lied under oath. But then you and I aren't consumed by an irrational
RB> hatred of the President of the United States.
GL> If Starr had no proof that Clinton lied under oath, on what
GL> rational grounds did the House use to approve two AoI against
GL> Clinton?
George: You hit the problem on the nail head. There WAS no rational
grounds. If you look at the ONE article that had to do with
perjury, it didn't even state what it was Clinton allegedly said
that was not true.
GL> Or did the House impeach him only because they dis-approved on
GL> the way Clinton made creative use of the English language?
I think they impeached him because they thought there was an outside
chance that either the Senate would react as irrationaly as the House
did, or that Clinton would resign.
RB> ... Bush flunked his drug test....uh-oh!!!
GL> IMHO, GWB will not be discussing his service in the Texas Air
GL> Nat'l Guard during the upcoming prez election season.
GL> Especially if he "dis-appeared for service" for up to 18 months
GL> during his tour of duty.
:)
.. Funeralgate: All we need is one bimbo willing to sue.
Randal Byrd
-> No, he would have been impeached on some other trumped up charge. Starr
EC> was
-> leading a lynch mob where they had already chosen the victim and simply
EC> had
-> to find ANY reason to tie the noose.
EC> A bizarre, unsupported claim that reveals a paranoid world view. The
Earl: You guys forget that as early as '93, you were predicting Clinton
would be impeached. Whitewater didn't work out like you hoped, so
your side invented other charges. :)
.. Bush flunked his drug test....uh-oh!!!
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
EARL CROASMUN
-> No, he would have been impeached on some other trumped up charge. Starr was
-> leading a lynch mob where they had already chosen the victim and simply had
-> to find ANY reason to tie the noose.
EC> A bizarre, unsupported claim that reveals a paranoid world view. The
-> Earl: You guys forget that as early as '93, you were predicting Clinton
-> would be impeached. Whitewater didn't work out like you hoped, so
-> your side invented other charges.
I'm just one guy, same as you, and I don't recall "predicting" such a thing
in 1993. I do recall pointing out back during the Whitewater scandal that
offenses committed BEFORE entering office are not grounds for impeachment.
You are making this up, right?
Ed Connell
-=> Quoting George Lagergren to All <=-
EC> the evidence and clearly gave Clinton a pass. Even
RB> The House Managers self-destructed when their weak case was
RB> submitted to examination.
GL> I wonder if any independent study has been done to determine
GL> whether the House Managers were able to prove during the Senate
GL> trial any charge made in the Hous AoIs?
How many witnesses did those effete senators allow
the house managers to call to establish their case?
Ed
Centurion
24 Jul 00 16:01, Randal Byrd wrote to Frank Scheidt:
FS>> His common name in Arkansas describes the Bill Clinton we
FS>> all know and (don't) love: "Slick Willie"!
FS>> .
RB> Actually his "common name in Arkansas" is Bill Clinton.
RB> Those who can't engage in reasoned discourse, though, resort
RB> to the sort of childish name-calling you mentioned here.
I was in Mt. View, Ark. a couple weeks ago. I asked several of the people who
live there what they thought about Clinton not coming back to Arkansas after he
leaves office. Every one of them said New York was welcome to him. A couple
of them referred to him as Slick Willie. Your premise falls flat on its face
of its own weight.
Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
Dan Kimmel
news:0000...@GratisNet.com...
>
>
The "effete senators?" Why, because they didn't turn into rabid fanatics
like their brethren in the House?
The Republicans have the majority in the Senate and could have set whatever
rules they wanted. Clearly they were embarrassed by the hysterical nature
of the House actions and tried to deal with as civilly as they could instead
of simply sending adulterous liar Henry Hyde and his ilk packing.
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to George Lagergren <=- 07-24-00 22:52
GL> Or did the House impeach him only because they dis-approved on
GL> the way Clinton made creative use of the English language?
RB> I think they impeached him because they thought there was an outside
RB> chance that either the Senate would react as irrationaly as the House
RB> did, or that Clinton would resign.
First of all, five GOP Senators detected from the GOP "conviction"
group. And there was no way that seventeen Dem senators would
vote to convict Clinton on a minor "lying about sex" crime charge.
Second, Clinton has guts unlike Nixon. Since he faced down the
Repub Congress twice over the fed gov't shutdowns.
If it looked like the Senate would convict him, he would have
waited until five minutes before the vote before turning in
his resignation.
Nixon resigned even before the full House voted on his impeachment
resolution. What a wimp.
-----------
BTW, do you think any speaker at the Repub convention will mention
Clinton's impeachment or does the GOP still feel the voter's wrath
over an impeachment of a popular prez? Is the GOP afraid the voters
will elect The Dem Party to the House this November?
.. "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." 24 Jul 00 23:02
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
Mimi Weasel
whilst talking to ALL, RANDAL said:
RB> FS> His common name in Arkansas describes the Bill Clinton
RB>we FS> all know and (don't) love: "Slick Willie"!
RB> FS> .
RB> Actually his "common name in Arkansas" is Bill Clinton.
RB> Those who can't engage in reasoned discourse, though, resort
RB> to the sort of childish name-calling you mentioned here.
:)!
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţ... Fundy brains for rent. Never used. Call 555-2132
David Worrell
24 Jul 00 02:07, EARL CROASMUN wrote to All:
EC> A bizarre, unsupported claim that reveals a paranoid world view. The
EC> charges were not "trumped up,"
A two term, multimillion dollar investigation and all it
turns up is that the president got head in the Oval
Office and lied about it.
Right. No trumped up charges here.
It was a witch hunt, plain and simple. Similar to the one
against Clarence Thomas. The only two differences that I
can see are that the Clinton witch hunt cost me more
money and that the Thomas witch hunt offended your
sensibilities in a manner the Clinton witch hunt didn't.
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
-=> Quoting Randal Byrd to Frank Scheidt <=-
FS> His common name in Arkansas describes the Bill Clinton we
FS> all know and (don't) love: "Slick Willie"!
RB> Actually his "common name in Arkansas" is Bill Clinton.
RB> Those who can't engage in reasoned discourse, though, resort
RB> to the sort of childish name-calling you mentioned here.
RB> ... Bush flunked his drug test....uh-oh!!!
Childish name-calling such as the above, for example??
David Worrell
FRANK SCHEIDT
David Worrell
FRANK SCHEIDT
David Worrell
FRANK SCHEIDT
David Worrell
FRANK SCHEIDT
David Worrell
FRANK SCHEIDT
David Worrell
David Worrell
David Worrell
Gary Braswell
DW>24 Jul 00 02:07, EARL CROASMUN wrote to All:
DW> EC> A bizarre, unsupported claim that reveals a paranoid world view. The
DW> EC> charges were not "trumped up,"
DW> A two term, multimillion dollar investigation and all it
DW> turns up is that the president got head in the Oval
DW> Office and lied about it.
DW> Right. No trumped up charges here.
DW> It was a witch hunt, plain and simple. Similar to the one
DW> against Clarence Thomas. The only two differences that I
DW> can see are that the Clinton witch hunt cost me more
DW> money and that the Thomas witch hunt offended your
DW> sensibilities in a manner the Clinton witch hunt didn't.
Glad to see this.
-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!