You are more amazing every day. You have shot past my points, and continue with snideness. I have said in the past that enemies of Clinton may have been involved in inappropriate ways, and that I am not sure that makes a difference. I have said that your account may be true, and certainly muddies the waters, but I know nothing about how the article came to Paula's attention, nor when her attorneys ( who were as I described them, not conservative activists) came into contact with activist attorneys. I don't know if Clinton exposed himself. I know that it makes sense to me that he did, because I have known creeps like that, and he behaves in a familiar manner, and because Paula acts like a woman wronged. In a court of law, with no further evidence, I would probably be forced to acquit, but I am not in a court of law. The preponderance of evidence seems to me to be against Clinton.
Actually, they are not my buddies, but casual acquaintances I happened to hook up with at a conference in Washington.
Chris Matthews, who was a Carter speechwriter and chief of staff for Tip O'Neill, and who is a columnist and has a show on CNBC currently, relates that when he went down to Little Rock for the first time in '92, he asked a bunch of mainstream press guys about Clinton. All of them said that the guy was a big liar, worse than a normal politician. Also, not only the American Spectator, but the Los Angeles Times (generally considered a liberal newspaper) has done reporting on his use of state troopers to further his numerous trysts while governor. Give it up, Schuh, although most Americans do not support impeachment (because they fear the consequences), most also don't think Slick should get off scot free, most believe Paula, most think he is a liar with low personal morals, most think he did what the House has alleged. You guys are constant invoking the "vox populi"--- okay, the verdict is in, Clinton's a slime. |
