Cheney's subpoenaed e-mails missing

[mnealtx 0]

Let's see.... Clinton obstructed an investigation, Waxman is complaining that their investigation is being obstructed... seems like a pretty simple comparison to me...as long as you're reading WHAT THE POST SAID and not trying to put hidden meaning into it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,114]

>I found that comment pertinent.

Of course you did. Whether the issue is a republican's obstruction of justice, bribery, sexual assault, jaywalking or smelling like a cabbage, a right winger somewhere would find Clinton's example to be pertinent through some byzantine logic.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think that both Clinton or Bush have no obligation to hand over emails. Especially to a power hungry congress

That whole "checks and balances" bit is over rated anyway, right?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I found that comment pertinent.

Of course you did. Whether the issue is a republican's obstruction of justice, bribery, sexual assault, jaywalking or smelling like a cabbage, a right winger somewhere would find Clinton's example to be pertinent through some byzantine logic.

Gawd...and y'all gripe about the conservatives unconditional support of Bush???

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,114]

>and y'all gripe about the conservatives unconditional support of Bush???

Well, unconditional support of Bush and unconditional bashing of Clinton! Honestly, though, it seems like conservatives are much more united in their hatred of Clinton than in their support of Bush.

[Zarkon 0]

If they don't have backups of their own emails I'm sure they remembered to back up OUR emails.

It's actually embarrassing to think that this administration thinks that we believe this line of shit. What we need to do is act like the auto industry and offer Bush an early retirement package. 'Here take this 100MM and go back to your ranch and leave us the hell alone'. Then hold an early election, can't let Chaney take over or he'd find a way to screw us even worse before his term was up.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I found that comment pertinent.

Of course you did. Whether the issue is a republican's obstruction of justice, bribery, sexual assault, jaywalking or smelling like a cabbage, a right winger somewhere would find Clinton's example to be pertinent through some byzantine logic.

Obstruction is obstruction, though Reagan's obstruction (via Ollie North) is a much closer analog.

Of course it is not legally pertinent, but this isn't a court of law, it is a court of opinion. I don't know why it is so hard to admit that Clinton lied to obstruct procedings - it's rather obvious by the fact that it got the case dismissed, and when found out, got the case reactivated.

[billvon 3,114]

>I don't know why it is so hard to admit that Clinton lied to obstruct procedings . . .

He lied for exactly the same reason that philandering husbands have been lying about their affairs for the past few thousand years. Occam's Razor and all that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I don't know why it is so hard to admit that Clinton lied to obstruct procedings . . .

He lied for exactly the same reason that philandering husbands have been lying about their affairs for the past few thousand years. Occam's Razor and all that.

Yes, just as with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons.

However, those two (and most philanderers) weren't accused of a crime in the legal system, just a moral violation.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>I found that comment pertinent.

Of course you did. Whether the issue is a republican's obstruction of justice, bribery, sexual assault, jaywalking or smelling like a cabbage, a right winger somewhere would find Clinton's example to be pertinent through some byzantine logic.

Obstruction is obstruction, though Reagan's obstruction (via Ollie North) is a much closer analog.

Of course it is not legally pertinent, but this isn't a court of law, it is a court of opinion. I don't know why it is so hard to admit that Clinton lied to obstruct procedings - it's rather obvious by the fact that it got the case dismissed, and when found out, got the case reactivated.

Who is denying it? I am denying that Clinton's behavior is the slightest bit relevant to the Cheney case. Just like Nixon's lies aren't relevant, and Reagan's lies aren't relevant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Who is denying it? I am denying that Clinton's behavior is the slightest bit relevant to the Cheney case. Just like Nixon's lies aren't relevant, and Reagan's lies aren't relevant.

well, you're wrong. It certainly is the 'slightest bit' relevant for a number of reasons. All are presidents, all acted badly, all are disliked by some people...all sorts of similarities.