Posted on 03/01/2002 10:52:56 AM PST by watsonfellow
Wow, she testified under oath and you believe her for that reason. Clinton testified under oath. Its pretty easy to lie under oath when one party to a discussion is dead and the other isnt talking. Hill as I recall was in significant legal troubles of her own at the time. Wonder if that affected her testimony?
Just another sad example to point out what a zealot you are. I've checked your postings for the last week. Every one of them related to Ron Brown. That was true even on threads that had noting to do with Ron Brown. Oops I take that back. You may have slipped one in where you were wanting to let Slobodan Milosevic off the hook because everyone knows it was all Bill Clinton's fault. In any event you are so fixated on this one case that to you it is conservatism. Wrong! It's looney tunes.
As far as your bitching that I am dodging the information you sent me... you neglect to point out that that was months ago and I told you at the time i wasnt interested in your fairy tales. If its not published in some reputable publication or hasnt been reported on Fox News than I'm not going to waste my time with it. After all there are sources out there that say Eisenhower was a communist and that Queen Elizabeth is the head of a covert world government. As for your sources, if they include NewsMax and Michael Rivero than they are a waste of everyone's time.
Take a course in logic. You need it. The fact I dont believe your case doenst mean Im defending Clinton. It just means i think you are a gullable fool being taken advantage of by the similarly foolish or those that get their kicks out of providing the "truth" to true believers such as yourself. If Herr Goebbels himself was alive and able to testify before congress and said that Bill Clinton was responsible for World War II, you would agree, after all the evidence or in this case, the lack of evidence proves it must be true.
No small feat for someone fresh out of college.
No ... I believe Nolanda Hill because, unlike your pal Clinton, much of what she testified to has been verified since her testimony ... by events and by the sworn testimony of other people (who were NOT under any suspicion of criminal activity, by the way). You are certainly free to show that Hill lied in her testimony but I rather doubt you will be able to do so since NOONE in the Clinton administration has come forth to disprove even ONE of the items she testified to. For example, she testified under oath that Brown visited Clinton only days before the plane flight that crashed. It would be a simple matter to use the Secret Service logs to show this is untrue ... but that hasn't happened, has it? If you want to show Hill lied about some other aspect of her testimony, go right ahead and try. I'm sure we will still be waiting months from now.
Hill as I recall was in significant legal troubles of her own at the time. Wonder if that affected her testimony?
First, Hill received no plea bargain in exchange for her testimony. She also received no leniency during her eventual sentencing. So how could it have affected her? Furthermore, it wasn't until she agreed to testify that the charges were brought by the Clinton DOJ. In fact, in what was clearly an attempt to intimidate her, the charges were brought only DAYS before she was slated to give SECRET testimony before the judge. The only people who knew about her upcoming testimony were the judge, Klayman and (guess who) a representative of the Clinton Administration. More than a few observers have noted the suspicious timing and how weak many aspects of the charges against her were. Moreover, if you wish to argue that we shouldn't believe the testimony of criminals or people charged with crimes, then we might as well open the jail doors since most of the big criminals have been convicted based on the testimony of smaller criminals. Afterall, the only people in the know about the details of the crimes are the smaller criminals ... right?
I've checked your postings for the last week. Every one of them related to Ron Brown. That was true even on threads that had noting to do with Ron Brown.
The mention of Ron Brown was completely appropriate in each case given what was being discussed ... MOVING ON in the face of evidence suggesting the Clinton administration committed serious crimes and that nothing is going to be done about it. If you want to point out a specific example where you think my mention of Brown inappropriate, go right ahead. I dare you.
The fact is ... you "move-on'ers" fear the Brown case because you can't spin it (because its about murder and treasonable activities, not just sex ... as you DISHONESTLY tried to suggest was the sole content of Tripp's accusations against Clinton). You fear it because the murder could be proved by simply exhuming the body and doing an autopsy. You fear it because there is no statute of limitation on this crime. In fact, your only approach to arguing the Brown case is to RUN from the facts and call the person providing those facts "looney". You can't stand the fact that now everyone can see this ... see your REFUSAL to address the specifics that indicate foul play ... such as the testimony of military pathologists, the PROVEN lies of AFIP management and the x-rays/photos that support the pathologist's contentions. RUN democRAT, like democRATS ALWAYS run.
As far as your bitching that I am dodging the information you sent me... you neglect to point out that that was months ago and I told you at the time i wasnt interested in your fairy tales.
I didn't neglect anything. In fact, I provided URLs to the threads where you DID dodge the facts by using every one of the democRAT techniques I listed. Unlike you, I WANT people to visit those URLs because they show quite clearly that you are not the conservative you claim to be. The first is http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a8c176b2669.htm. The second is http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ac236c107b3.htm. Furthemore, a REAL conservative would not have made such a nasty remark about Tripp as you did on this thread. But liberals can't help themselves, I suppose.
If its not published in some reputable publication
I'll ask you AGAIN. What publications do you consider "reputable"?
or hasnt been reported on Fox News than I'm not going to waste my time with it.
If you think Fox News is the distributor of unvarnished truth ... then explain why they hired Heraldo? Explain why they provide a voice for so many very left leaning talking heads. Fox is in the business of ENTERTAINMENT. Furthermore, do you honestly believe that pressure couldn't be brought to bare on even Fox to not discuss or investigate certain topics? But the bottom line is that now you are going to hide not only behind government agencies, but news organizations. You STILL haven't addressed the FACT that every pathologist to examine Brown or look at his x-rays and photos (except Dickerson who is a proven LIAR) has stated that Brown should have been autopsied because of the suspicious, bullet like, wound in his head. Even the one who originally did the examination and claimed it was blunt force has backed off ... after being caught on live TV LYING about the nature of the wound and x-rays.
After all there are sources out there that say Eisenhower was a communist and that Queen Elizabeth is the head of a covert world government.
Typical democRAT debating technique. Associate a case like Ron Brown's death with other "conspiracy theories" that the public will probably laugh at. This is the same technique ABC and NBC news used in reporting the Brown case. Rather than EVER mention what the pathologists have said and what the x-ray shows (and all the other incriminating facts), they simply did a story lumping the idea that Brown might have been murdered in with UFOs. You are just as DISHONEST as they. That's because you BOTH represent liberals, pretending to provide the public with the truth.
As for your sources, if they include NewsMax and Michael Rivero
Lying is also a characteristic of democRATS. I have NEVER used Rivero or his site as a source in the Brown case and I dare you to show I have. As to Newsmax, I can list DOZENS of factual stories that they reported about the Clinton administration that NONE of the mainstream media ever mentioned. Again, if you want to claim that ANYTHING reported on Newsmax regarding Ron Brown's death is untrue ... go ahead and make your case. Show they lied about ANYTHING in this case. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke in a clear attempt to avoid discussing the facts that Newsmax reported. And we are STILL waiting to hear what YOUR "reputable" sources are. I can't wait to take them apart by listing significant stories that we at Free Republic all know to be true that they didn't report. I can't wait to show the BIAS in your "reputable" sources.
Take a course in logic. You need it.
Well here is some logic for you.
A = the pathologists statement regarding Brown.
B = the x-rays and photos that support those statements.
C = the LIES by the AFIP management about A and B.
A + B + C = there should have been an autopsy but there wasn't because the WHITEHOUSE ordered that there be none.
There is no escaping that logic. There is only RUNNING from it like you and all the rest of the "move-on'ers" are doing.
The fact I dont believe your case doenst mean Im defending Clinton.
The fact that you won't argue A or B or C, however, does suggest you are defending Clinton. The fact that you'll come out of the woodwork to say something UNKIND and UNTRUE about Linda Tripp does suggest you are democRAT. The fact that you use all 10 of the characteristics I listed for democRATS in debating this and other subjects does suggest you are a democRAT defending Clinton.
If Herr Goebbels himself was alive and able to testify before congress and said that Bill Clinton was responsible for World War II, you would agree, after all the evidence or in this case, the lack of evidence proves it must be true.
Case in point.
I didnt suggest anything about Clinton' problems only being about sex. The man lied under oath. As the top law enforcement officer of the United States, that is unconscionable. He deserved to be impeached and I said so at the time. I did point out the futility of getting a conviction. I said it wasnt going to happen and I was right. If you are going to put words in my mouth to fit your foolish theories at least bitch about the right things.
As for Clinton commiting murder, its possible. The man has commmitted rape so its not completely beyond him. However, there is no way Im going to believe that stupid list of three hundred or so that some of you more gullible types swallow. Someone could be 101 years old and die of cancer and if they knew Bill Clinton closely they woudl find their way to the list. Typical kooksville crap.
As for why I dont debate your crap, I told you months ago. Ive got better things to do with my time that debunk your foolish paranoid theories. If you are right, get a judge to exhume the body, empanel a grand jury and have at it. Its your case to make, not mine. Im much more concerned about the here and now and defeating Dascle and his cronies. Unfortunately for you thirty years from now, you will still be crying a one tune song about Ron Brown. Pathetic. A whole life wasted.
And as for your complaint about my saying you were using stuff from Michael Rivero, learn to read. I said "if." Makes a big difference. Try dealing with the truth rather than what you want me to say. Dont bother responding, Im not going to respond. You've wasted enough of my time.
Betray your friends and dont be surprised that you stand alone.
Sadly, more than a few of the comments here will turn your stomachs.
Sorry, Watsonfellow, I appologise is advance. I have not seen reasons #1 through #1234. Could you please let us know what they are again, and document them all at the same time, for the benefit of the archives?
Does accessory after the fact of murder count?
There is enough information in the public record to make a credible charge that Clinton participated in coverups and obstruction of justice in various Arkancide investigations.
The fact that Bush and Ashcroft have pursued none of the old murders shows a lack of integrity in the current administration.
What I said you did is suggest that Tripp's contributions were just about sex. You said "She drug the entire country through the mud, lowering discourse, and bringing grossness into everyday conversation. She's also responsible for the large increase in oral sex among teenagers who point out its not sex." That, of course, is a lie. It was Bill, Monica, and Starr who DELIBERATELY did those things. And why do you ignore Tripps contribution to Filegate?
The man lied under oath.
He did a lot more than lie under oath, but of course you don't want to discuss any of those other crimes, do you?
I did point out the futility of getting a conviction. I said it wasnt going to happen and I was right.
And that happened in large part because of the "move-on" philosophy espoused by people like you. It was this philosophy and the unwillingness of the GOP to lay the SERIOUS crimes that Clinton and his people committed on his doorstep, that allowed him to escape conviction. Out of curiosity, what was your reason for believing there would be no conviction?
As far as I'm concerned, the impeachment for lying under oath about Monica and Jones was a distraction ... a deliberate sleight of hand to keep the eyes off the serious crimes the Clinton's and DNC committed ... one of them being what happened to Brown and what Brown was involved in. You do realize, don't you, that the blue dress showed up at precisely the moment that the black community and some in the press were finally taking notice of the incongruities in the Brown case and calling for an investigation. Of course you do ... but you want us to ignore that curious coincidence.
If you are going to put words in my mouth to fit your foolish theories at least bitch about the right things.
As anyone can see above, I did no such thing.
As for Clinton commiting murder, its possible. The man has commmitted rape so its not completely beyond him. However, there is no way Im going to believe that stupid list of three hundred or so that some of you more gullible types swallow.
You are getting desperate in trying to salvage your claimed conservatism. Again, I have said NOTHING about the list of people that some associate with Clinton. NOTHING. As far as I'm concerned, that TOO is a distraction conveniently used by people to keep people from truly focusing on the few cases that have real meat ... like Brown and Foster. There is no sense in ranting about those other cases until at least ONE has been proven and the two easiest one's to prove are Brown and Foster. Prove a murder in those cases and THEN it might be time to take a closer look at some others.
Typical kooksville crap.
Which I have said NOTHING about so stop trying to tie me and the Brown case to that list. Let's discuss the facts in the Brown case, or you can RUN as I expect you to do ... AGAIN.
As for why I dont debate your crap, I told you months ago. Ive got better things to do with my time that debunk your foolish paranoid theories.
You keep saying this as if we will believe you if you say it enough times. DemocRATS seem to think that always works ... but not here at Free Republic. Here, one must argue the facts if one wishes to be viewed as credible and, so far, all you've done is demonstrate a fear of discussing those facts. Your calling Brown a "paronoid theory" does not make it so. In fact, given the facts that anyone who wishes can verify, your wish to dismiss it as such only makes it more likely that people will check it out. Thank you.
If you are right, get a judge to exhume the body, empanel a grand jury and have at it. Its your case to make, not mine.
No, it is not. It is Ashcroft's case to make. It is his job to investigate credible allegations of criminal activity as has been suggested by military officers who were in good standing at the time they made the accusations. In fact, it is his responsibility AND BUSH's. Bush took an OATH to uphold the laws of this country. They should apply to democRATS. If Republicans are not willing to apply them to democRATS then perhaps they won't be eager to apply them to themselves ... and if that is the case are they any different than democRATS. And, so far, in this case and in many other cases having to do with the Clintons and DNC (like the Riady Non-Refund which you also seem to be running from), Ashcroft and Bush are shirking their responsibility. NO EXCUSES.
Im much more concerned about the here and now and defeating Dascle and his cronies.
Is that your new excuse for ignoring the laws that have been broken? Do you honestly believe that by ignoring the crimes the democRATS committed (which include, by the way, serious tampering with the election process) that the GOP will be more likely to win election. More likely, that will only empower the democRATS.
Ignore those crimes and democRATS know that a President who controls the media (like they did AND STILL DO) and the law enforcement arm of the Federal government (like Clinton did) can get away with ANYTHING. They will know that the GOP is toothless when it comes to keeping them from committing crimes. They will know that afterwords, they can plead the 5th, lie or just pretend a memory lapse and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will know that they can steal elections and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will even know that after they commit the crimes, and Republicans are back in power, Republicans STILL won't do anything ... even if they have mountains of evidence proving the crimes. They will know that they can ILLEGALLY examine the FBI files for damaging information on their opponents and publish the information in their controlled media ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will know that they can both OPENLY destroy the evidence of their wrong doing or simply disconnect the systems that are supposed to preserve a "paper trail" of government activities ... and the GOP will do nothing. They will know that they can abuse the IRS, FBI and MILITARY, turning them into instruments for distracting the public from reports that might damage them or even use them to harass their enemies ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will know that they can intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who threatens them and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will know that they can get campaign funds from illegal sources (even by selling US secrets to the enemy) and Republicans will do NOTHING. And thanks to the failure of the Bush administration to investigate the Brown and Foster matters, the democRATS perhaps now know they can KILL high level members of the government who threaten to expose their activities and Republicans will do NOTHING.
And as for your complaint about my saying you were using stuff from Michael Rivero, learn to read. I said "if." Makes a big difference.
No matter how you spin what you said or define "IS", you STILL brought Rivero into this discussion in an attempt to discredit the Brown allegatioins. It was a DISHONEST attempt to smear the sources of the Brown information by connecting NewsMax to Rivero, who you think will be viewed as untrustworthy, and everyone can see that. It was a DISHONEST attempt to provide cover as you RUN from the facts in the Brown case.
Try dealing with the truth rather than what you want me to say.
Sorry, but you are the only one who seems to have trouble with the truth. You have lied or spread obvious disinformation several times during this and the previous discussions, and you STILL REFUSE to discuss facts about the Brown case that are easily verifiable. All you'd have to do is spend half an hour visiting the sources I've posted on multiple occasions. But you won't do that because being informed is NOT your purpose for visiting Free Republic. You are a democRAT who is here to make sure that any matter that could seriously endanger the democRAT party gets no traction.
Dont bother responding, Im not going to respond. You've wasted enough of my time.
Run democRAT, like I said you would.
But the other negative reactions did not reveal the UNREASONABLE hatred of Tripp that your response did. And based on my previous discussions with you on the Brown matter (as verified by our discussion in this thread), I think you couldn't help it. You were just voicing your pent-up democRAT feelings about her. It must be hard pretending to be a conservative all the time when you are not.
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.