Democrats in 2008: [Dems2008] Re: Who's hoodwinking who?

Rob:

Of course, Ed is confusing two different matters (either of which, in my view, merited his removal from office).

First, the purportedly "private matter between Hillary and Bill" was his philandering with Paula Jones. The question then became, "Is that a sufficient basis on which to justify perjury." I think not. The Arkansas bar thought not. It is not. [And if Hillary did not know by then about his philanderings, then one has to question how close Bill and Hillary really were]

The SECOND episode was his behavior with Monica Lewinsky. If one has not by this time come to a reasoned conclusion by now, then there is no point in trying to reason further.

--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Rob Harrington <Eamon1916@...> wrote:
>
> the "private matter between Hillary and Bill" became a public matter the second Bill lied under oath.
>
> I don't care if you're lying about an affair, stock sales, leaking classified information, or steroids... Perjury is perjury.
>
> Slainte,
> Rob Harrington
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: citation502 citation502@...
> To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:00:41 PM
> Subject: [Dems2008] Re: Who's hoodwinking who?
>
>
> 
> Ed, I know the party line from NOW: "it's a private matter between Hillary and Bill." I know the line, okay?
>
> But when a president or a governor or any other public official puts himself or herself in a position where his or her private behavior may give someone the power to extort an action out of the official (in exchange for silence), then it is very much our business.
>
> Imagine if a disgruntled or rejected Monica were to let it slip to a lobbyist or another interest that she could prove (blue dress, semen stains, and all) that she had real leverage over the president. Would it be any of our business that he or she could compromise on any issue of public importance to preserve their secret?
>
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Hochman" eah01@ wrote:
> >
> > I forget the reason why he wasn't but it wasn't for an affair
> > situation which should have been between him and hillary; it was for
> > lying to congress. Other than that, his administration had erased a
> > debt created by the first bush, had a strong economy, developed a
> > surplus, a plus for civil rights, immigration reform and more.
> >
> > People are not tolerant of his lie and yet will tolerate a President
> > who lied to the american public and congress about events that led us
> > into Iraq. weapons of mass destruction Iraq has.......even cheney
> > says that to this day despite being proved wrong. this was the
> > premise. and yet we tolerate that and don't push harder on the
> > impeachment bill in the house. It is believed that he was awol when
> > he was in the National Guard but we can't find out the conclussion of
> > any findings for those actions. Patriot Acts, Govt surveillance of
> > US citizens, denial of saying things recorded on tv, we don't hold
> > him accountable for. Is Bush above the law. We at least had a trial
> > for Bill and we realized that he lied. He was disbarred at least for
> > a while. But Bush...........we seem to have a double standard here.
> > I guess that the current President of this nation can do no wrong and
> > that is the way he was.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" citation502@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > >
> > > In my view Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for
> > reasons
> > > that include those for which he was disbarred.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hillary Double Standard says that selecting a president is akin to
> > > "hiring a chief executive." Let's assume that for a
> > > moment. Any CEO who behaved in office as Bill did would have been
> > > removed without a golden parachute.
> > >
> > > At the time, of course, the shills at NOW backed Clinton
> > forecefully,
> > > motivated, we all knew then, by the fact that their Hillary would
> > never
> > > be elected president if history recorded her husband as having been
> > > REMOVED from an office that he dishonored.
> > > --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Hochman" <eah01@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill Clinton did a great job as President but this would be a
> > first.
> > > > Bill Clinton, the new first man? I can see a tv sitcom based on
> > this
> > > > family. They did it with bush ("That's my Bush" which is now out
> > on
> > > > dvd- I have a copy") and lasted for quite a few episodes. Don't
> > > > know why it was cancelled unless it was too close to the truth.
> > > >
> > > > ed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, isabelle isabelle_ms@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nan, part of the reason I like Hillary is because Bill
> > > > > Clinton will be there too, that's not a negative for
> > > > > me at all. Unlike alot of Obama supporters who I
> > > > > guess hated the Clintons all along and are using
> > > > > republican talking points against them, I think
> > > > > Clinton did a good job and people around the world
> > > > > respected us. The 90s look pretty good to me now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- nancy m gibson nmgibson@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes a lot of them are. I can understand why they
> > > > > > are as I can understand
> > > > > > why so many AA are voting for Obama because of his
> > > > > > race. You are
> > > > > > talking about two groups of people who have felt
> > > > > > oppression. I am sure
> > > > > > part of the reason I am voting for Hillary is
> > > > > > because she is a woman and
> > > > > > I admit it is not the best reason. ----------Nan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IF I HAD A CHOICE I WOULD KILL EVERY REPORTER,
> > > > > > BUT I AM SURE WE WOULD BE GETTING REPORTS
> > > > > > FROM HELL BEFORE BREAKFAST.
> > > > > > General W.T.Sherman
> > > > > > So all those women voting for Hillary just because
> > > > > > she is a woman are
> > > > > > voting for her for the wrong reasons?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > ______________
> > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Democrats in 2008

14 Mart 2008 Cuma

[Dems2008] Re: Who's hoodwinking who?

Hiç yorum yok:

Blog Arşivi