Re: OT: Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago

In article <1168472865.957710.274200@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> dbu, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > In article <QLKdnSza7Jpg_jjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I happen to agree w/JSB, re: why he was dragged there to begin with:
> > > basically a witch hunt. I realize that a Grand Jury decides whether a
> > > case
> > > it worth the bother or not to go to the next level, but... IMO it wasn't
> > > worth the bother to even hit the Grand Jury stage. The whole thing was a
> > > (rather stupid - one area in which he didn't use the brains he was born
> > > with) molehill that was turned into a mountain of Everest proportions.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Not a witch hunt. Repeat once again, he, Clinton, had sex with an
> > employee, a subordinate, while on duty, in the workplace and then lied
> > about it under oath, (purjury, a felony).[/color]
>
> If it wasn't a witch hunt, why was he asked to testify under oath about
> his sex life?[/color]

.....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation I can conjure
up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
--

" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-2FBE31.18131710012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1168472865.957710.274200@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> dbu, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > In article <QLKdnSza7Jpg_jjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > > I happen to agree w/JSB, re: why he was dragged there to begin with:
>> > > basically a witch hunt. I realize that a Grand Jury decides whether
>> > > a
>> > > case
>> > > it worth the bother or not to go to the next level, but... IMO it
>> > > wasn't
>> > > worth the bother to even hit the Grand Jury stage. The whole thing
>> > > was a
>> > > (rather stupid - one area in which he didn't use the brains he was
>> > > born
>> > > with) molehill that was turned into a mountain of Everest
>> > > proportions.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Not a witch hunt. Repeat once again, he, Clinton, had sex with an
>> > employee, a subordinate, while on duty, in the workplace and then lied
>> > about it under oath, (purjury, a felony).[/color]
>>
>> If it wasn't a witch hunt, why was he asked to testify under oath about
>> his sex life?[/color]
>
> ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
> about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
> American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
> cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
> Hillary should let him off so easy.[/color]

I doubt if she did, in private. In private, I bet she let him have a piece
of her mind, but good. A wimp & pushover, she isn't.

Cathy


The only explanation I can conjure[color=blue]
> up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
> she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
> --
>[/color]

In article <cbudnRV_ANarHzjYnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> " dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
> news:Demsonhotseatnow-2FBE31.18131710012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <1168472865.957710.274200@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> dbu, wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <QLKdnSza7Jpg_jjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I happen to agree w/JSB, re: why he was dragged there to begin with:
> >> > > basically a witch hunt. I realize that a Grand Jury decides whether
> >> > > a
> >> > > case
> >> > > it worth the bother or not to go to the next level, but... IMO it
> >> > > wasn't
> >> > > worth the bother to even hit the Grand Jury stage. The whole thing
> >> > > was a
> >> > > (rather stupid - one area in which he didn't use the brains he was
> >> > > born
> >> > > with) molehill that was turned into a mountain of Everest
> >> > > proportions.
> >>
> >> > Not a witch hunt. Repeat once again, he, Clinton, had sex with an
> >> > employee, a subordinate, while on duty, in the workplace and then lied
> >> > about it under oath, (purjury, a felony).
> >>
> >> If it wasn't a witch hunt, why was he asked to testify under oath about
> >> his sex life?[/color]
> >
> > ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
> > about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
> > American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
> > cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
> > Hillary should let him off so easy.[/color]
>
> I doubt if she did, in private. In private, I bet she let him have a piece
> of her mind, but good. A wimp & pushover, she isn't.
>
> Cathy[/color]

I'm sure she did, but there is this political future that is paramount.

[color=blue]
>
>
> The only explanation I can conjure[color=green]
> > up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
> > she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
> > --
> >[/color][/color]
--

Cathy F., 1/10/2007,7:17:57 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> A wimp & pushover, she isn't.[/color]

Not at all, but HE IS.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f11xgg31vw3y000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Cathy F., 1/10/2007,7:17:57 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> A wimp & pushover, she isn't.[/color]
>
> Not at all, but HE IS.[/color]

Only in one arena, IMO.

Cathy

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:47:44 -0800, larry moe 'n curly wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm surprised Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation
>> I can conjure up is that she (and he) feels that she would be
>> politically damaged if she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I
>> think these folks are.[/color]
>
> Or how shallow your thinking is. Bill and Hillary are actually remarkably
> alike, right down to their handwriting.[/color]


They're BOTH dense?

Thanks, but I didn't need you to tell me that. Eight years was enough, and
enough to know I don't want THOSE two in the Office again! The economy is
just recovering from the last time!

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:17:57 -0500, Cathy F. wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> " dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
> news:Demsonhotseatnow-2FBE31.18131710012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> In article <1168472865.957710.274200@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> dbu, wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <QLKdnSza7Jpg_jjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > I happen to agree w/JSB, re: why he was dragged there to begin
>>> > > with: basically a witch hunt. I realize that a Grand Jury decides
>>> > > whether a
>>> > > case
>>> > > it worth the bother or not to go to the next level, but... IMO it
>>> > > wasn't
>>> > > worth the bother to even hit the Grand Jury stage. The whole thing
>>> > > was a
>>> > > (rather stupid - one area in which he didn't use the brains he was
>>> > > born
>>> > > with) molehill that was turned into a mountain of Everest
>>> > > proportions.
>>>
>>> > Not a witch hunt. Repeat once again, he, Clinton, had sex with an
>>> > employee, a subordinate, while on duty, in the workplace and then
>>> > lied about it under oath, (purjury, a felony).
>>>
>>> If it wasn't a witch hunt, why was he asked to testify under oath about
>>> his sex life?[/color]
>>
>> ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
>> about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
>> American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
>> cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
>> Hillary should let him off so easy.[/color]
>
> I doubt if she did, in private. In private, I bet she let him have a piece
> of her mind, but good. A wimp & pushover, she isn't.
>
> Cathy[/color]


LOL! But HE is! Shoot, he even LOOKS Henpecked!

But, we knew who was REALLY in charge of the Oval Office...

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:UYiph.3194$Br.2851@trndny08...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:13:17 -0600, dbu, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I'm surprised
>> Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation I can conjure
>> up
>> is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if she
>> divorced him.[/color]
>
>
> DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!
>
> A Winner every time![/color]

Actually, for a while there - before he bounced back again, people were
saying that perhaps she should shed herself of Bill, so that his personal
"adventures" wouldn't diminish/taint her own image & chances, politically.

Cathy
[color=blue]
>[/color]

" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-2FBE31.18131710012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1168472865.957710.274200@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> dbu, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > In article <QLKdnSza7Jpg_jjYnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > > I happen to agree w/JSB, re: why he was dragged there to begin with:
>> > > basically a witch hunt. I realize that a Grand Jury decides whether
>> > > a
>> > > case
>> > > it worth the bother or not to go to the next level, but... IMO it
>> > > wasn't
>> > > worth the bother to even hit the Grand Jury stage. The whole thing
>> > > was a
>> > > (rather stupid - one area in which he didn't use the brains he was
>> > > born
>> > > with) molehill that was turned into a mountain of Everest
>> > > proportions.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Not a witch hunt. Repeat once again, he, Clinton, had sex with an
>> > employee, a subordinate, while on duty, in the workplace and then lied
>> > about it under oath, (purjury, a felony).[/color]
>>
>> If it wasn't a witch hunt, why was he asked to testify under oath about
>> his sex life?[/color]
>
> ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
> about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
> American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
> cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
> Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation I can conjure
> up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
> she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
> --
>[/color]


OK: Let's clean this up and get the facts straight, as you see them. He was
questioned about the blowjob because of:

- Where he did it?
- The fact that he was on federal payroll?

Or, both?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:25:34 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
>> about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
>> American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
>> cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
>> Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation I can conjure
>> up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
>> she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
> OK: Let's clean this up and get the facts straight, as you see them. He was
> questioned about the blowjob because of:
>
> - Where he did it?
> - The fact that he was on federal payroll?
>
> Or, both?[/color]

One more time...the question of an attempt of rape, in Arkansas.

Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace, and
then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
answering for it?

Perhaps you should go live in Iraq. Under Iraqi law, she would have been
stoned by HIS family (and her own sons) for allowing this to happen.

It seems to be the tack you're taking with this...the blame lies
everywhere but with Clinton.

I don't believe you're a dispatcher at a trucking company...you have to be
a Criminal Defense lawyer. You're placing the blame EVERYWHERE but where
it belongs.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:natph.6254$Mf2.3269@trndny01...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:25:34 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> ....blink....It was not about his sex life.....blink again..... it was
>>> about where and when and who he engaged with and about lying to the
>>> American people. I or anyone else I suspect, could care less if he's
>>> cheating on his wife, that is about he and his wife. I'm surprised
>>> Hillary should let him off so easy. The only explanation I can conjure
>>> up is that she (and he) feels that she would be politically damaged if
>>> she divorced him. Frankly, that is how shallow I think these folks are.
>>> --
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> OK: Let's clean this up and get the facts straight, as you see them. He
>> was
>> questioned about the blowjob because of:
>>
>> - Where he did it?
>> - The fact that he was on federal payroll?
>>
>> Or, both?[/color]
>
> One more time...the question of an attempt of rape, in Arkansas.
>
> Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace, and
> then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
> answering for it?[/color]

That's a moral question, not a legal one. As I explained earlier, adultery
legal currency in divorce proceedings. Or, if someone's lover is found dead,
you may be questioned in detail. But, *nobody* is otherwise questioned about
sexual activities unless they are directly related to some other crime. Or,
if it benefits someone to ask you. That's a hint.

[color=blue]
>
> I don't believe you're a dispatcher at a trucking company...you have to be
> a Criminal Defense lawyer. You're placing the blame EVERYWHERE but where
> it belongs.[/color]


No, I'm not a dispatcher. That theory is floated occasionally by one of the
three village idiots here.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:36 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace, and
>> then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
>> answering for it?[/color]
>
> That's a moral question, not a legal one. As I explained earlier, adultery
> legal currency in divorce proceedings. Or, if someone's lover is found dead,
> you may be questioned in detail. But, *nobody* is otherwise questioned about
> sexual activities unless they are directly related to some other crime. Or,
> if it benefits someone to ask you. That's a hint.[/color]


Still enough to convene a Grand Jury
And then he lied.

so there.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:MPvph.6272$Mf2.2409@trndny01...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:36 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace,
>>> and
>>> then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
>>> answering for it?[/color]
>>
>> That's a moral question, not a legal one. As I explained earlier,
>> adultery
>> legal currency in divorce proceedings. Or, if someone's lover is found
>> dead,
>> you may be questioned in detail. But, *nobody* is otherwise questioned
>> about
>> sexual activities unless they are directly related to some other crime.
>> Or,
>> if it benefits someone to ask you. That's a hint.[/color]
>
>
> Still enough to convene a Grand Jury
> And then he lied.
>
> so there.
>[/color]


OK. So, if your wife finds you're doing it with some other woman, YOU could
end up before a grand jury, too?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:38:27 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:MPvph.6272$Mf2.2409@trndny01...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:36 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace,
>>>> and
>>>> then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
>>>> answering for it?
>>>
>>> That's a moral question, not a legal one. As I explained earlier,
>>> adultery
>>> legal currency in divorce proceedings. Or, if someone's lover is found
>>> dead,
>>> you may be questioned in detail. But, *nobody* is otherwise questioned
>>> about
>>> sexual activities unless they are directly related to some other crime.
>>> Or,
>>> if it benefits someone to ask you. That's a hint.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Still enough to convene a Grand Jury
>> And then he lied.
>>
>> so there.
>>[/color]
>
>
> OK. So, if your wife finds you're doing it with some other woman, YOU could
> end up before a grand jury, too?[/color]

If Adultery is a crime, yup.

But in Clintoon's case, he was accused of attempted rape.

so there.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:0Vwph.6300$GL.4355@trndny06...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:38:27 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:MPvph.6272$Mf2.2409@trndny01...[color=darkred]
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:36 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Or, I suppose you can be Governor, call someone to meet you someplace,
>>>>> and
>>>>> then try to get them to do the nasty, even after they say no, without
>>>>> answering for it?
>>>>
>>>> That's a moral question, not a legal one. As I explained earlier,
>>>> adultery
>>>> legal currency in divorce proceedings. Or, if someone's lover is found
>>>> dead,
>>>> you may be questioned in detail. But, *nobody* is otherwise questioned
>>>> about
>>>> sexual activities unless they are directly related to some other crime.
>>>> Or,
>>>> if it benefits someone to ask you. That's a hint.
>>>
>>>
>>> Still enough to convene a Grand Jury
>>> And then he lied.
>>>
>>> so there.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> OK. So, if your wife finds you're doing it with some other woman, YOU
>> could
>> end up before a grand jury, too?[/color]
>
> If Adultery is a crime, yup.
>
> But in Clintoon's case, he was accused of attempted rape.
>
> so there.[/color]


Ya know, it's entirely possible that you may have a point here, but for the
fact that you can't seem to put it in words. Here's something analogous, to
help you see straight:

You're called before a grand jury because there's evidence that you have
embezzled money from your company. That's a crime. During the proceedings,
you are asked "Is it true you have a bumper sticker on your car saying
"Yeah-It's Got a Hemi" ? You say "No, I do not have such a bumper sticker".
The prosecutor says "You've lied. We have a picture here, in which you are
driving a car with that bumper sticker". You reply saying "Oh fer cryin out
loud - that's my daughter's car. That picture's two years old. I was taking
it to the mechanic for her". Prosecutor: "We find that the car is
registered to your wife, so in fact, you *do* have such a car. You lied to
the grand jury".

Get it? The question had nothing to do with embezzling, but you've just lied
to a grand jury.