Genaro wrote:
> 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.
So the Clintons's manipulated Peter Paul in 1979 when he was
convicted of fraud?
>
> 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?
What I know is that they have never been charged with a crime.
> -------
>>> The video was compelling, was it not? Crime on tape.
The video was the rants of a desperate man. It showed no crime, only
unsubstantiated claims.
>>> -------
>>>>> 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.
> |