Fire Gonzales

[Gonz]

Gonzales was investigated because he fired attorneys

Not a crime. The reasons are completely irrewlevant.

Clinton was investigated for a non-crime.

Rape & sexual harassment are non crimes?

As Mark said, Gonzales as chief law officer, shouldn't know better?

Off hand, I don't know what he lied about. Specifically. Differently worded questions can
bring about differently worded responses. Using hindsight, they can be compared & shown
to be perjurous. Politics does that. See Libby.

But, in direct answer to your question, he should not be lying.
Nor should he have been under investigation.
Which came first?

 

[markjs]

Rape & sexual harassment are non crimes?

Since when did Clinton ever rape anyone?

Last I heard sexual harassment, isn't a crime, it's bad bussiness, rude, and obnoxious, and one can be civilally liable, but there is no criminal charge for it, and since when was that proven? I am sure if it was, in fact proven in a court of law, Mr. Clinton would have lost a lawsuit and owed a payout, so we are dealing with at worst accusations of sexual harassment.

Nor should he have been under investigation.

Why is that? Because it distresses you that he used his position illegally for political maneuvering and got caught, and it shows your heroes in the Bush administration up for the the corrupt bunch of scum thay are?

*Wonders when if ever they will stop trying to use Clinton, who was an extremely popular president, and his few failings in the smokescreen effort of diverting the attention from the corruption in the here and now. I suppose not until they find some real corruption on the left, they have nothing else to use.....*

 

[Gonz]

Because it distresses you that he used his position illegally

The AG (and the President) may fire AT WILL any FEDERAL PROSECUTOR they wish. Gonzalez fired 7. Clinton fired them all.

I am sure if it was, in fact proven in a court of law, Mr. Clinton would have lost a lawsuit and owed a payout, so we are dealing with at worst accusations of sexual harassment.

Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in return for $850,000 – but no apology or admission of guilt from the president.

Washington Post

 

[markjs]

OK, one case of sexual harrassment, that was never proved, and a man in his position had a good reason to make it go away even if it was utter nonsense and a bogus accusation. So again not a thing proven, and where did the accusation of rape come from? Could it be Gonz's vivid imagination combined with Gonz's wishful thinking?

And for the last time, Clinton is a retired president, all the accusations in the world are 100% irrelevant!!! You are just trying to divert attention away from and ignore the current corruption in Washington, and it isn't working!

 

[Gonz]

Just answering your

 

[markjs]

Rape & sexual harassment are non crimes?

Since when did Clinton ever rape anyone?

Where did the accusation of rape come from? Could it be Gonz's vivid imagination combined with Gonz's wishful thinking?

OK, obviously you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread so since you have no answer about the real issues, the corruption so rampant among your heroes, and since all you seem to want to do is live in the past, please answer those two questions.

 

[Gonz]

OK, obviously you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread

Refuse? I've answered it many many times.

 

[markjs]

Refuse? I've answered it many many times.

Not to any of the opposition's satisfaction you haven't. Most likely, because it cannot, in fact, be done. Still, since we know that you can't, and further won't even make a serious, point by point, attempt which addresses all the numerous and serious accussations the Bush administrations faces, without the obligatory, incessant, conservative whining about how Bill Clinton was proven guilty of one lone insigniifigant, and for the most part irrelavant charge, then how about you answer these two much simpler questions?

Since when did Clinton ever rape anyone?

Where did the accusation of rape come from? Could it be Gonz's vivid imagination combined with Gonz's wishful thinking?

I'm waitng....

*crickets*

 

[paul_valaru]

Didn't gonzales just quit?

 

[Cerise]

They are not fooled by this administration's smokescreens, nor were they fooled by republican witch hunts back then.

Paranoia, the destroyer.

...... that spineless and toothless cunt Pelosi......

Uh oh. Your hatred of women is showing again. Better tuck it back in.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Didn't gonzales just quit?

He sure did. He got tired of the 'witch hunt'. Maybe he should've just fired all of the attorneys and hired back the ones he liked.

 

[markjs]

Uh oh. Your hatred of women is showing again. Better tuck it back in.

One last time, and one more time than I should have to say this.

I hate to have to repeat myself, but I am not interested in engaging in any further discussion with you in this forum. I'm perfectly happy to kick it with you in the Lunatic Lounge, or anywhere else on Off Topic Central, but here, no.

Incidentally, I'd be quite OK with a Hillary Clinton presidency, although I am quite skeptical of her chances if she was nominated, and feel that a Clinton nomination is a slam dunk for the Republicans. As far as I can tell, that's quite a compliment to the fairer sex. What higher comliment could I pay, how better could I give example, of my respect for women, (in general), than having absolutely no problem with being proud to have one as commander in chief of this great nation.

BTW, the only reason I think Hillary cannot win, is that although I have no problem with it, I don't thing enough of America is ready for a female president as I am. I'd be quite pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

 

[spike]

Not a crime. The reasons are completely irrewlevant.

Did you think I wouldn't notice you cutting off all the other other things he's investigated for?

Off hand, I don't know what he lied about. Specifically. Differently worded questions can
bring about differently worded responses. Using hindsight, they can be compared & shown
to be perjurous. Politics does that. See Libby.

Or see Clinton. Or just quit making excuses for only one side.

But, in direct answer to your question, he should not be lying.
Nor should he have been under investigation.
Which came first?

Same could be said for Clinton. Your hypocrisy is still showing.

 

[Cerise]

One last time, and one more time than I should have to say this.

I hate to have to repeat myself, but I am not interested in engaging in any further discussion with you in this forum. I'm perfectly happy to kick it with you in the Lunatic Lounge, or anywhere else on Off Topic Central, but here, no.

You must have me confused with someone who gives a crap about what you are interested in.

If you don't want to in this forum---then don't.
It's not that complicated.

 

[markjs]

*crickets*

*Eagerly awaits Gonz to return from work or whatever he's up to*

*crickets*

*A spider has most of it's web completed and continues working*

*Tumbleweed roles across the barren landscape*

*crickets*

 

[Gonz]

Not to any of the opposition's satisfaction you haven't.

Accept the truth or not. The administration (of any party) in charge has the right to hire & fire federal prosecutors at will. No law was broken.

I'm waitng....

*crickets*

Juanita Broaddrick

 

[markjs]

Yeah the Bush administration is pristine and lily white with purity. If that's your belief, I got a lot of beachfront property in South Dakota to sall ya real cheap. Oh yeah that's right your strapped because you have to pay for services the goverment provides to us all....My heart just bleeds for you....

And still he can't answer a simple question about when did Clinton become a rapist?

 

[Gonz]

And still he can't answer a simple question about when did Clinton become a rapist?

Pay attention toi the entire thread.
Juanita Broaddrick

 

[markjs]

OK, I googled it. I like how when republicans face accusations, they are innocent, and even if they are later to be proven guilty, they are to be presumed innocent until convicted, and even then you've always got some ready excuse, or accusation to aim at a democrat to divert attention.. Democrats, however, well they are just guilty, of anything they are accused of automatically and deserve no such presumption of innocence.

Stimpy, your wealth of hypocrisy astounds me!

 

[spike]

Pay attention toi the entire thread.

More hypocrisy considering you keep ignoring the rest of the things he's investigated for. Even just cutting them out when you quoted me.