Deaths of those near the Clintons

[avatar4321]

They investigated nothing this President did (which is their job) and they did not pass the budget spending for 2007 which was also their job.

They left all of this undone when they had amajority to push through anything they wanted to push through.

The have gone down in history for the competition for the "Do Nothing Congress" in our countries history.

They have nothing to investigate. The President hasnt done anything wrong. Why on earth do you expect Congress to investigate when there is nothing to investigate?

Investigation for investigations sake would be doing nothing.

As for the budget, who cares? one budget out of 12. 6 years of which have been the first balanced budgets in decades.

Apparently, you dont understand how Congress works if you think you can just push through things when youve got minimal control of the Senate. And a bunch of traitors who let the opposing party illegally filibuster important things.

[April15]

so none of these people are dead?!....we need to tell their familys....they will be thrilled....

Dieing is the end result of birth! Come to grips with mortality! In case you haven't noticed no body lives forever.

[manu1959]

Dear Mr 59 ,

Everywhere.

go look at your own posts in every thread we have been in together.

tell you what....go find me a post where i defened the US govt. and say they do a good job....

you assume since i bash you and other loons on this board that i support bush....

i will make this real easy ..... i could add both your IQs together and have a real good golf score .....

[avatar4321]

http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp

Investigations take time ,ask Ken Starr who kept asking for more money and more time and found nothing.

They have only just b egun most of the investigations which the 109th congress refused to do.

They had a historically low rate of investigation in the 109th. The 110th is trying to sort out the backlog of investigations the 109th sat on.

First, Ken Starr didnt find "nothing." He found enough evidence to impeach the President and disbar him. If he had regular trial proceedings rather than Senate proceedings, he would have been convicted and served jail time for obstruction, perjury etc.

Second, If witnesses werent dying under mysterious circumstances and oh yeah "committing suicide" before they were planning to give testimony against the Clintons, you can be assured that President Clinton would be in jail right now.

People dont mysteriously die and commit suicide to protect politicians.

[April15]

First, Ken Starr didnt find "nothing." He found enough evidence to impeach the President and disbar him. If he had regular trial proceedings rather than Senate proceedings, he would have been convicted and served jail time for obstruction, perjury etc.

Second, If witnesses werent dying under mysterious circumstances and oh yeah "committing suicide" before they were planning to give testimony against the Clintons, you can be assured that President Clinton would be in jail right now.

People dont mysteriously die and commit suicide to protect politicians.

Ken starr found nothing! His purpose was to investigate the White water finances. Why he got so side tracked, Ha ha, is another whole issue.

[avatar4321]

Ken starr found nothing! His purpose was to investigate the White water finances. Why he got so side tracked, Ha ha, is another whole issue.

The reason why he got so side tracked is because witnesses kept dying under mysterious circumstances.

[Kathianne]

Those dying and those lying. It was problematic. Of course, there was no connection. They would say the same if 9/11 critics in their 40's and 50's were 'dying off', right?

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

Which of the peopel on his witness list died?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...dougal.update/

[JohnDoe]

First, Ken Starr didnt find "nothing." He found enough evidence to impeach the President and disbar him. If he had regular trial proceedings rather than Senate proceedings, he would have been convicted and served jail time for obstruction, perjury etc.

Second, If witnesses werent dying under mysterious circumstances and oh yeah "committing suicide" before they were planning to give testimony against the Clintons, you can be assured that President Clinton would be in jail right now.

People dont mysteriously die and commit suicide to protect politicians.

Avatar,

You don't know that for one nanosecond....not one! You don't know how a jury would have come out. And you know if you are a JD, that an impeachment is not anywhere near fair... it is a Political Process...

It only takes 50% of the people in the house to indict him/impeach him and it only takes 2/3's of the Senate to convict him.... while in a Jury trial, a Criminal trial, it takes 100% of the jury people to convict. And In an Impeachment, the preponderance of innocence is not nearly as strong as it is in our Criminal system?

At least this is what I have read on the subject?

Am I wrong and I am mistaking you for someone else that is a lawyer or Jd?

Also, Libby was given a jury trial, and was convicted, was he disbarred? He should be, if Clinton was for his miniscule lie, but a lie NONE the LESS...no excuses here on that, but Libby's lies...and obstruction of Justice seemed a hell of alot MORE important to the country than Clinton's about sex.
-------------------------------------------
And why isn't this thread in Conspiracy Theories? I really am not understanding how things logically work around here?

[avatar4321]

Which of the peopel on his witness list died?

you are so not seriously asking this question on this of all threads are you?

[truthmatters]

4

[manu1959]

So tell me how Clinton controlled the heart attack of Mc dougal?

he was injected with an oil like substance that left no trace.....

[Kathianne]

Avatar,

You don't know that for one nanosecond....not one! You don't know how a jury would have come out. And you know if you are a JD, that an impeachment is not anywhere near fair... it is a Political Process...

It only takes 50% of the people in the house to indict him/impeach him and it only takes 2/3's of the Senate to convict him.... while in a Jury trial, a Criminal trial, it takes 100% of the jury people to convict. And In an Impeachment, the preponderance of innocence is not nearly as strong as it is in our Criminal system?

At least this is what I have read on the subject?

Am I wrong and I am mistaking you for someone else that is a lawyer or Jd?

Also, Libby was given a jury trial, and was convicted, was he disbarred? He should be, if Clinton was for his miniscule lie, but a lie NONE the LESS...no excuses here on that, but Libby's lies...and obstruction of Justice seemed a hell of alot MORE important to the country than Clinton's about sex.
-------------------------------------------
And why isn't this thread in Conspiracy Theories? I really am not understanding how things logically work around here?

Which is why all the above are so common?

[truthmatters]

4