"2003"??? What the hell is going on here? Look at the 2002 date at the top of the indictment below...
--Boot Hill
Posted on 01/08/2005 12:13:31 PM PST by kattracks
The MSM would have been all over him if this was released before the election
But now that it's over .... never know what more we might find out :0)
LOL. That's why I was split on the idea. :)
=== Believe me, you won't be missed.
Why?
Echo Chamber Only thread?
I can understand. After all, we're talking about the left, these days, as opposed to the far left at DU who's even in more dire need of Validation than ya'll.
Just for fun:
Danged if you do and danged if you don't!!
Why?
Because I'm not the only one who is tired of your long winded replies which are all about b####ing and moaning about almost everything Republican/Bush.
"2003"??? What the hell is going on here? Look at the 2002 date at the top of the indictment below...
--Boot Hill
In that case I'm sure glad I'm not your insurance underwriter.
We know that if positions had been reversed, the democrats would have seized on it as a campaign issue. Watergate redux or whatever. That said, I wish republicans, at the very least, would consider Americans first and let the chips fall where they may.
Hmmmmmm. I thought it was the president's constitutional duty to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic! IMHO Hillary Clinton, the socialist/communist, is an enemy of the state!!!
In regards to this article, it seems to me that keeping an indictment sealed is perfectly appropriate, in order to ensure a fair jury trial. Myself, I would not want to be a juror in this trial had it come before the election. Every news person in the country would be after me and my family, trying to ferret out some deep conspiratorial connection with the Bush administration. Democrats would be looking for ways to intimidate me and no doubt there would be threats.
Now that the election is over, the media will pretty much ignore this story and there is actually a chance at a conviction, without a tainted jury.
Of course, since I am a known Bush supporter my opinion won't carry much weight with those who fault Bush for not arresting all Clintonistas last Inauguration Day.
I'm not really sure: but certainly the farther you get from an alleged crime, the more evidence is lost. If nothing else, potentially exonerating witnesses die, for instance. So once the prosecution has put its case together (which it has, through the grand jury process) the Sixth Amendment seems to me to require that the defense be allowed to begin preparing its case at once.
What all this REALLY means is that there is no difference in the two parties, down deep they cover each others A$$e$ and care not about the people.
In Sept. 2003, Mrs. Clinton went so far as to accuse the White House of corruption, saying Bush officials had deliberately covered up unhealthy air quality at Ground Zero in the days after the 9/11 attacks.
Yeah, cause the collapse of the twin towers was a well kept secret, and Bush had aliens paint the DUST that was in the air with invisible paint so no one would be able to tell the air was saturated with pollutants and dust.
I doubt it. More likely Mr. Tonken may face sudden accidental or suicidal death.
Same reason most cards are dealt FACE DOWN, and same reason you keep a straight face, when you have four aces.
It is highly unlikely the Clintons will be held accountable for all the underhanded and illegal things they did, or we think they did.
But, it is possible to bust up their gang.
YES.
Dear Cyn. Pardon the interference, but I think he said,
"I am so much better than anyone else, and I just wanted to make a post to that effect. I know everything and I would have done this matter differently, although I will never tell you how. I will not bother with other posters or posts, as you underlings are not worthy of my time or attention."
(I can send you the new ASKEL5 decoder ring, but it's a real bitch to get on your finger, and it hurts all the time.)
Hey Askel5, any particular reason for this antisocial behavior?
Not only that, but you can be sure Hillary isolated herself from any documentation that would support and indictment.
It is only his word against hers, and that won't win in court.
Sometimes it is better to keep your enemies where you can see them.
There is a difference between hiding knowledge of criminal acts, and not pursuing indictments that a prosecutor would throw out. Maybe President Bush has some info about some of the Clinton's acts that the rest of us are not party to. If you can't prove them, publicly stating them is grounds for libel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.