Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu
NewsMax ^ | 6/24/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 06/25/2002 8:43:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

Monday, June 24, 2002 11:15 p.m. EDT

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Déjà Vu

Ten years ago, L. Jean Lewis, an investigator with the government's Resolution Trust Corporation, was able to piece together a complicated Arkansas bank fraud conspiracy from a treasure trove documents she unearthed in an out-of-the-way Kansas City warehouse.

The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign.

"The documents were seized in a May 30 raid of a California storage facility containing documents of Peter Paul, the entrepreneur who funded Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign with over $2 million dollars in direct, in-kind contributions which were never reported by Hillary Clinton or her Senate campaign, as required by law," revealed the public interest law firm Judicial Watch in a press release late last week.

The raid is important for two reasons. First, it may yield yet another treasure trove of evidence against the Clintons.

But the second reason may be even more significant. The Justice Department's continuing investigative interest in the Clintons comes despite news last week that the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, James Comey, decided to shut down a key part of the Pardongate probe.

Peter Paul and his Judicial Watch lawyers have been trying to persuade the Justice Department for the better part of two years to take his allegations seriously. But instead they seemed more intent on prosecuting him for stock fraud. That is, until now.

Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman suggested the raid may represent something of a turnabout in thinking among Attorney General John Ashcroft and his colleagues.

"Mr. Paul could have turned the documents about the Clintons over to the FBI months ago under a cooperation agreement," Klayman noted. "Instead, he waits in a Brazilian dungeon for the Ashcroft Justice Department to get serious about this corruption case. So it is a welcome sign that the Justice Department is turning up the heat on this new crime scandal concerning the Clintons."

The FBI raid may also be a sign that the reported no prosecution deal for the Clintons, demanded by Democrat leaders as the price for President Bush getting some of his legislative agenda implemented, is beginning to unravel - since Democrats seem to have kept little if any of their part of the bargain. (See: Bush Insider Claims Clinton Deal Torpedoed Pardongate)

"The search warrant authorizing the FBI raid of the storage facility specifically references the Clintons and the New York Senate campaign," says Judicial Watch.

"The search warrant authorizes the seizure of: Records relating to New York Senate 2000, the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton, the Federal Election Commission, David Rosen and Aaron Tonken... (David Rosen was the Director of Finance for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and Aaron Tonken is a Democrat fundraiser who raised money for the Clintons. Both men have knowledge of Mr. Paul's contributions.)"

Meanwhile, Peter Paul awaits a Justice Department offer of legal leniency in exchange for his further cooperation in the Clinton case.

If he returns to the U.S. anytime soon, it could be a sign that for Hillary Clinton, it's deja vu all over again.



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fbi; hillary; raid; warehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
Hope this isn't a re-post! But it IS Good News to some ..
1 posted on 06/25/2002 8:43:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
You'll see...this will go nowhere just like all the other Clinton investigations. That b***h is like a cockroach..she'll endure when all others have come and gone...with or without "Raid".
2 posted on 06/25/2002 8:46:35 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
BI = FBI :-|


DUMP DAVI$ & the Den of Socialists



GO SIMON

3 posted on 06/25/2002 8:46:36 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Oh no! It's WRWC all over!
4 posted on 06/25/2002 8:48:44 AM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Another Judicial Watch investigation ? (Yawn)
5 posted on 06/25/2002 9:03:57 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The FBI raid may also be a sign that the reported no prosecution deal for the Clintons, demanded by Democrat leaders as the price for President Bush getting some of his legislative agenda implemented, is beginning to unravel - since Democrats seem to have kept little if any of their part of the bargain.
What, did Bush expect his judicial nominees to come up for a vote?

6 posted on 06/25/2002 9:05:07 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
hahahaha....guess they have to occasionally put on a little show for the sheeple who want to believe the whole sham is really legitimate....anybody want to bet me that nothing comes of this?

good bush pr move, but its all an illusion, gang...a la wizard of oz.

7 posted on 06/25/2002 9:12:11 AM PDT by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history."

What? I thought Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life.
8 posted on 06/25/2002 9:14:39 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
BI = FBI :-|

I thought the story was about her sexual preference!

9 posted on 06/25/2002 9:19:25 AM PDT by WKB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history."

How does an investigation into Clinton's possible involvement in a banking scandal (which resulted in exactly zero charges against Clinton) have anything to do with him lying about his sex life? I checked back on the two Articles of Impeachment that were voted by the house against Clinton, and they were about Lewinsky and Paula Jones, not banking.
10 posted on 06/25/2002 9:23:08 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Salon.com article from a year ago: Peter Paul and Chelsea

The Stan Lee fraud case gets weirder: Litigation-happy Larry Klayman now wants to depose ... Chelsea?

By Anthony York June 22, 2001

With Washington's growing obsession with the Chandra Levy-Gary Condit noir thriller, the folks at Judicial Watch are trying to stoke the fires of a good ol'-fashioned Clinton scandal.

The story begins with a Hollywood promoter named Peter Paul, who has been indicted in a New York court for his role in a $25 million stock manipulation scam involving Stan Lee Media, the company of Spider Man creator Stan Lee. Paul, co-founder of the Stan Lee Media Group, is currently hiding out in Brazil, battling extradition and desperate to cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid spending time in the slammer.

Enter Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, the conservative group that made a name for itself waging war on the Clinton White House. Klayman says that Paul made over $2 million in direct and in-kind campaign contributions to stage a star-studded "Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton" last year, which was a soft money fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. The money was reported as coming from the Stan Lee Media Group.

Paul, who has a past record including convictions for cocaine possession and a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme involving the Cuban government, says those donations were personal contributions, but that Clinton wanted to hide Paul's involvement because of his felony record. In August, Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove reported "convicted felon Peter Paul -- who served three years in prison two decades ago after pleading guilty to cocaine possession and trying to swindle $ 8.7 million out of the Cuban government -- helped organize Saturday's star-glutted $ 1 million fundraising gala for Clinton's Senate race at businessman Ken Roberts's Brentwood estate. Paul, co-founder of Stan Lee Media, told us in a statement ... that he only produced the gala and hasn't given or raised money for the first lady's New York campaign."

11 posted on 06/25/2002 9:26:01 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
When I wrote that the "wheels of justice grind slowly," I didn't mean it isn't good news that they are still grinding. Who knows where this might lead?

Thanks for the post!

12 posted on 06/25/2002 9:28:35 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF
As you well know, WW evolved into the perjury/obstruction case when the IC got wind of a conspiracy to obstruct justice in a federal civil proceeding. Not just the grifting, predating 'Toon's sex life. As to the crimes, please read the Starr Report,Judge Wright's contmpt citation, the Ray Report, the plea agreement and the criminal statutes associated therewith....
13 posted on 06/25/2002 9:28:52 AM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Don't confuse him with the facts.
14 posted on 06/25/2002 9:30:47 AM PDT by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Hillary "You mean I had to tell you guys I got a 2 million dollar check? I can't just keep it for myself?"
15 posted on 06/25/2002 9:32:35 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: galt-jw
good bush pr move, but its all an illusion, gang...a la wizard of oz.

Wouldn't want to bet on that...Bush told Daschle and Co. not to lie to him...but they have because they have held up legislation in violation of the linked agreement. It is apparently pay back time.

16 posted on 06/25/2002 9:33:17 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam
I know, I know. It sure brought back memories though when all of the quislings were defending the 'Toon. Trouble is, his perjury over Moanica is his legacy in the sheeple's minds, that, corruption and in good part, 9-11. Witness Rosie O's tirade of recent....
17 posted on 06/25/2002 9:34:19 AM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
There's info on Whitewater & Lewis, etc., among these:

The Holiday *Best* of Bill Clinton & his Friends!

FOB and FOFOB... the clinton friend files

Hodgepodge O' Hillary


18 posted on 06/25/2002 9:35:52 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Oh, I know that once people started looking into the Whitewater scandal, they turned over every rock they could find to see what they could pin on Bill Clinton, and hit paydirt with his sex life. Big deal. Whitewater was an issue of financial malfeasance. Lewinsky and Jones had nothing to do with that.

19 posted on 06/25/2002 9:44:19 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"they turned over every rock they could find to see what they could pin on Bill Clinton, and hit paydirt with his sex life."

Whatever. IMHO, revisionism can be so tiresome. *yawn*

20 posted on 06/25/2002 9:47:54 AM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I wonder if she'll have a Pretty in Orange press conference.
21 posted on 06/25/2002 9:48:41 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WKB
That may have been a Freudian Slip on My Part ..

Fortunately, the newly Corrected Title Won't Confuse Others :-)

Thanks to the Great DatabaseKeeper for correcting it!!!

Judicial Watch .. Keep on Truckin' !!
22 posted on 06/25/2002 10:12:32 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: galt-jw
guess they have to occasionally put on a little show for the sheeple who want to believe the whole sham is really legitimate....anybody want to bet me that nothing comes of this?

Betting that something would come of it would be throwing money away. The soccer moms don't care how crooked these people are.

23 posted on 06/25/2002 10:18:43 AM PDT by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
My theory, Clintons uses the FBI to seize the records to CYA.

Hillary 14, America 0. And it’s only half time folks.

24 posted on 06/25/2002 10:24:34 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
That's not all they found...


25 posted on 06/25/2002 10:32:15 AM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
LMAOROTF ... Thanks I needed that !!!
26 posted on 06/25/2002 10:45:10 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Or is this just the Republicans trying to stay in power? Don't tell me they are starting to fight dirty like the democrats have done for decades!
27 posted on 06/25/2002 11:14:20 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Oh, I know that once people started looking into the Whitewater scandal, they turned over every rock they could find to see what they could pin on Bill Clinton, and hit paydirt with his sex life.

"And no one in Clinton's administration was convicted of a felony, either." ;-)

You forgot to include that bit of apologia, Ms. Rosen.

**snicker**

28 posted on 06/25/2002 12:27:13 PM PDT by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
Sorry, I a) don't understand the reference about felony charges, b) don't understand the reference to a Ms. Rosen, and c) fail to see what any of that has to linking a (failed) attempt to charge either of the Clintons with complicity or involvement in a financial scandal with getting a quickie in the Oval Office.
29 posted on 06/25/2002 12:42:37 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Don't tell me they are starting to fight dirty like the democrats have done for decades!

Did you forget who is in the WH? Bush just loves to play hardball...

30 posted on 06/25/2002 1:01:41 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Do you have kneepads that match all your dresses, or do you just have one set???

There is NO excuse for the immoral Clintons.....you fell for their lies....Get smart, start thinking for yourself.

31 posted on 06/25/2002 1:10:53 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Bump for the late afternoon crowd.
32 posted on 06/25/2002 2:15:07 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Nah, the Wellesley girls don't like guys in dresses, trust me. I know.

Actually, my first reaction about hearing about Bill's sexual transgressions wasn't politically related: it was, "I didn't think a Wellesley girl would put up with that kind of shit!" Not the ones I knew, anyway. But I guess we all make compromises in our marriages.
33 posted on 06/25/2002 2:25:40 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Or is this just the Republicans trying to stay in power? Don't tell me they are starting to fight dirty like the democrats have done for decades!

Maybe Its the ViaGra kikkin' in :-?
34 posted on 06/25/2002 2:58:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RonF
and hit paydirt with his sex life. Big deal.

Until you can look at yourself in the mirror and say, "I should be ashamed that I support a guy who, as President of the United States, committed the felony of perjury to cover up the crime of sexual harrassment" you will be part of the problem.

Our society is the better for the heroes like the firemen who rushed into the buring Towers on 9/11 to save others. We are better for those who crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field to spare their fellows on the ground.

Your guy sacrifices others to protect himself. We are the poorer for it. You divide us by lauding such a contemptible man.

35 posted on 06/25/2002 2:59:09 PM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; All
Okay...this is sad..."Man Tells Passer-By Cop About Dope" is getting more play than this article....
36 posted on 06/25/2002 3:02:32 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
"Until you can look at yourself in the mirror and say, "I should be ashamed that I support a guy who, as President of the United States, committed the felony of perjury to cover up the crime of sexual harrassment" you will be part of the problem."

Non-responsive. Still waiting for someone to show me how sexual pecadillos have anything to do with financial crimes.
37 posted on 06/25/2002 3:06:08 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RonF
On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and his payment of a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association. In exchange, Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, agreed to close the Whitewater probe, ending the threat of criminal liability for Mr. Clinton after he left office.

Source

38 posted on 06/25/2002 3:07:37 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Non-responsive. Still waiting for someone to show me how sexual pecadillos have anything to do with financial crimes.

So, you define harrassment as a pecadillo, do you? Perhaps if your mother, or wife, or sister, or daughter had endured what happened to Paula Jones at the hands of her superior, you'd feel different. Perhaps not. Do you think the laws on sexual harrassment unnecessary? Do you think they should be obeyed and those who break them punished. Like Clinton himself, you have no shame in your support of that coward who hides behind the skirt of his wife and calls upon his Cabinet, Executives of this country, to cover up his crimes.

For the record, Ken Starr was Independent Counsel investigating Whitewater when allegations surfaced that Clinton was soliciting perjury in the Paula Jones case. Janet Reno asked Starr to investigate those charges as well. That's how they are connected. She could have appointed another IC, but didn't. The Impeachment charges of perjury where those Starr felt were most obvious and provable. Little did he realize how truly sleazy Congressional Democrats were. And you want to line up with them?

39 posted on 06/25/2002 3:28:23 PM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Thank you. Probably a fitting penalty for lying under oath. I didn't support impeaching him on lying about getting a blow job in the Oval Office; it's personal business, not official business, and to my mind it never met the standard for "High crimes and misdemeanors". Now, if he'd lied about something having to do with his official duties, oh, say, like whether or not he's approved supplying arms to enemies of the U.S. in direct contravention of American law, that'd be another thing.

But still, there's no charges of crimes. And I still don't see what his sexual offenses had to do with the financial issues of Whitewater.
40 posted on 06/25/2002 3:30:41 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
I was thinking more of Monica Lewinsky, who seemed to me to have been a 50/50 player in her little drama with Bill C.

Now, the Paula Jones situation is much more sordid. I have no support for that. Certainly grounds for a civil suit, and as I remember in fact one was pursued and settled. A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency. If Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit in the State of Arkansas against Bill Clinton, I'd support her actions and wish her luck, although I'd imagine that was handled in the civil suit settlement.

The connection to the Whitewater investigation, then, is simply that it and the investigation of these other matters were done by the same lawyers. The acts themselves had nothing to do with Whitewater, but to read the original statement in the news story, and with no other understanding of the issues, you'd think that the Clintons were charged with financial malfeasance in Whitewater, and they weren't.
41 posted on 06/25/2002 3:38:01 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"Getting a quickie"??? Is THAT ALL? No corruption or malfeasance in any way???

LOL.....and like Monica, Gennifer, et all, you swallowed it!

42 posted on 06/25/2002 3:48:18 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Now, the Paula Jones situation is much more sordid. I have no support for that. Certainly grounds for a civil suit, and as I remember in fact one was pursued and settled. A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency.

Clinton's major offense was, like Nixon's, the coverup more so than the crime. Watergate was about the upcoming election and not about Nixon's Presidency per se.

Clinton's perjury as President should have removed him from office, either through resignation, ala Nixon, or conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is just no way we can tolerate lying to a grand jury, or even asserting Fifth Amendment rights by a public official.

43 posted on 06/25/2002 3:48:25 PM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
bump
44 posted on 06/25/2002 3:50:39 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency."

Do the terms obstruction of justice and subbornation of perjury mean anything to you? He used the powers of his office and members of his administration to attempt to deny a woman (Paula Jones) her rightful day in court. He had people lie both under oath and in public to cover up his actions - regarding both Paula Jones and Monica.

Laws were broken while he was in office. It matters not whether they had anything to do with his duties as President, it matters that he broke the law. Period.

45 posted on 06/25/2002 3:51:17 PM PDT by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
"There is just no way we can tolerate lying to a grand jury, or even asserting Fifth Amendment rights by a public official. "

"There are frightening implications for the future of our country if we do not impeach the President of the United States …If we fail to impeach, we have condoned and left unpunished a course of conduct totally inconsistent with reasonable expectations of the American people.

The people of the United States are entitled to assume that their President is telling the truth. The pattern of misrepresentation and half-truths that emerges from our investigation reveals a presidential policy cynically based on the premise that the truth itself is negotiable.

It is a sad chapter in American history, but I cannot condone what I have heard; I cannot excuse it, and I cannot and will not stand for it."

Congressman Caldwell Butler (Republican) speaking about Nixon in 1974

46 posted on 06/25/2002 3:58:54 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
"Laws were broken while he was in office. It matters not whether they had anything to do with his duties as President, it matters that he broke the law. Period."

Well, in fact it does matter. That's why the article of the Constitution applicable in this matter quotes English common law by using the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", as opposed to "any crimes or misdemeanors". It then is up to the House, and then the Senate, to make the judgement as to what constitutes a "high crime".

I need to look up the origin of that phrase, to see if there are any examples in previous usage as to what's a "high crime" and what isn't.
47 posted on 06/25/2002 4:03:09 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I, like many around here, consider perjury, obstruction of justice, and subbornation of perjury to be "high crimes and misdemeanors". We believe a terrible injustice was done when the Democrats and RINOs in the Senate didn't.....
48 posted on 06/25/2002 4:05:57 PM PDT by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
Point of information: I've seen the acronym "RINO" around here before, but I don't know what it means.
49 posted on 06/25/2002 5:33:17 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RonF
yOU SAID..............................But I guess we all make compromises in our marriages.

Nooooooooo....we Un-Wellsley's do NOT make compromises in our marriages. Do you think this is how the rest of the USA is?? that women take in crude, rude, cheating husbands to get married??/ Only in Trailer Parks or WELLSLEY I guess, cause that's not what happens in middle America!!!

Take a trip t the heartland to see some REAL people that are HAPPY in their marriages!!

50 posted on 06/25/2002 5:45:02 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson