On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:44:58 -0800, George Grapman wrote:
> Genaro wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:37:24 -0800, George Grapman wrote:
>>
>>> Genaro wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:56:59 +0000, George Grapman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bvallely@... wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 2, 1:20 pm, George Grapman wrote:
>>>>>>> bvall...@... wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Prove that their has been dem voter fraud.
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> Don't have to. The people of George have voted for photo ID.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> In other words you have as much proof that there was fraud in
>>>>>>> Georgia
>>>>>>> as you do for your claim that despite entering a not guilty plea
>>>>>>> Limbaugh was never charged with a crime.;
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> You know, you're right. I was thinking of the fact that Rush had
>>>>>> never been caught committing a crime - I had forgotten about the
>>>>>> publicity hungry DA who pissed away millions of the people of
>>>>>> Florida's money, dropped the Constitution in the shredder, all on the
>>>>>> desperate hope of shutting down a flow of information to as many as
>>>>>> 20 million people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right, the DA had his moment, and got Rush into a police
>>>>>> station, and got his picture. Of course, it was all a massive waste
>>>>>> of time, but you got your moment, and you changed your underwear.
>>>>> But,of course, you had no problem with a prosecutor spending
>>>>> millions
>>>>> looking into Whitewater,filegate,travelgate and Vince Foster and only
>>>>> coming up with lying about . and you had no problem with another
>>>>> prosecutor spending ten years on Cisneros and coming up empty handed
>>>>> after the final two years in which no witnesses were called,no
>>>>> subpoenas were issued but pay checks for the prosecutor were still
>>>>> cashed.
>>> Thanks for the detailed defense of the time and money spent on those
>>> investigations.
>>>> -------
>>>> It is a ponderous chain the Clinton's drag around as they head towards
>>>> Hillary's grail in November. And let's not forget the Peter Paul
>>>> episode.
>>> Peter Paul? You mean the man with four criminal convictions whose
>>> complaints have been tossed out by the FEC, the Senate Ethics Committee
>>> and several federal courts federal courts?
>> -------
>> That's him. Isn't it amazing how the Clintons can destroy a person when
>> he/she gets in their way? Paul's suit against former President Clinton
>> remains, as of December 2007, outstanding. He is seeking $41.9 million in
>> damages.
>
> How did they "destroy " him? Was in in 1979 when he was charged with
> fraud and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute (he
> entered a guilty plea)? Was it in 1983 when he violated his parole by
> entering Canada under a false name? Did the Clinton's force him write
> bad checks to finance his comic book enterprise? Did they force the SEC
> in 2001 to charge him with securities fraud? Did they force the FEC to
> rule that he had no case? Did she force the Senate Ethics Committee to
> refuse to even hear his complaint? Did they force numerous judges both
> on the trial and appellate level to rule the case had no merits?
>>
-------
It is very possible. The Clintons are expert at using people and they
wield a lot of influence through friends, celebrities, and those Clinton
has appointed to positions of authority. Didn't you watch the video,
parts 1 and 2? Paul accuses a judge, Clinton appointee, of tainting the
jury against him.
Just because Paul is a convicted felon doesn't make him wrong about the
Clintons' "partners in crime" relationship that dates back to Clintons'
Arkansas governor days.
Do you really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean since then?
-------
>> The video was compelling, was it not? Crime on tape.
>> -------
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
>> -------
>>>>>> BTW, Rush returned from his weeklong vacation today. He was great. .
>>>>>>
>>>>> I heard a few minutes. He was on another rant that record low
>>>>> temperatures "prove" that global warming is a hoax. He , of course, is
>>>>> silent when there are record highs but I suppose you still believed
>>>>> him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Thanks for a fact frilled explanation of Limbaugh's harping on low
>>> temperatures while ignoring high temps.
|