Click
7/30/2007 4:01:00 AM
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:13:46 GMT, "Go Mavs"
<Mav@ericks.com> wrote:
>proved my point..
>
>no one wanted to debate the merits of the case in question...
>
>rest assure that they did not even read it.
And for the Kazillionth time:
1 Clinton did not lie under oath, nor did he
solicit/suborn perjury, or abuse power. He did not lie
to the grand jury---no such charge has ever been filed
2 Clinton was not impeached for any known justifiable
reason the founders could have envisoned---he was
impeached for: a) Republican base was in near-revolt,
b) They couldn't beat clinton, and c) Because they
could. (they called for impeachment in 1992---go figure
how that could possible be related to anything)
3) The "starr Referral" was totally "Theoretical"---not
one assertion or allegation was backed up by FIRST HAND
witnesses or evidence. That would mean that it was
predicated on Hearsay, 3rd hand witnesses and
"Possible" events.
4) the "Starr Referral" which formed the basis of the
HJC reasons never prompted the HJC to being an
"Impeachment inquiry"----rather they (pressed for time)
decided to vote impeachment anyway
5) The events (as I described before) leading up to the
Starr "unretirement" would requre a so-called "thinking
person" (like you claim to be) to ask: "what crime
ocurred" to cause Starr to "un-retire" so that he could
investigate it----then find out that none did---that it
wouldn't occure until 6 months IN THE FURTURE !
6) No where in the spam did I see ANY reference to
CPAC, the RNC, Bob Barr's call for Impeachment in 1992,
or William Bennett (CPAC) suggesting that a "question
of character" could help bring down Clinton. And, if
you recall, THAT prompted the $2.4 million of Richard
Mellon Scaife money to the American Spectator to "find"
Paula Jones