The Clinton Rape Allegations

Some of the deep thinkers here speak their own language. Then they must giggle when others respond as though they accept the terminology. Must say, though, these represent a new low in discourse...Sure to be surpassed, no doubt, by today's dose of mud slinging!

For swolf:

"An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB) is a type of headwear that can shield your brain from most electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers. AFDBs are inexpensive (even free if you don't mind scrounging for thrown-out aluminium foil) and can be constructed by anyone with at least the dexterity of a chimp (maybe bonobo). This cheap and unobtrusive form of mind control protection offers real security to the masses. Not only do they protect against incoming signals, but they also block most forms of brain scanning and mind reading, keeping the secrets in your head truly secret. AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable."

clicky clicky

I am glad you have posted this joefromchicago. There are many here (though there does seem to have been a recent decline) that could really benefit from a cap like this.

de nile....

So that is what the famous river looks like? pretty.

One other thing about the Clinton rape allegations worth noting is that they were the deciding factor in Slick actually being impeached. There were not originally enough votes for it but, then, the republican house leadership made all the republicans read through the rape materials. A number of them walked out of the reading room visibly shaken.

To a percentage of folks Clinton will always be a rapist. No further proof needs to be offered to them, because none is needed. this is what they want to believe.

Nope.

impeach=To make an accusation against.
does NOT mean found guilty.
the House made an accusation against Clinton, the Senate did NOT find him guilty.

... by a relatively thin margin for a supposedly innocent man.

I think the more accurate take on it is that the Senate did not find the level of the crime sufficient to warrant removal from office. The Senate did not rule that he was not guilty of the crime, nor did the grand jury who indicted him, nor did the New York federal judge who held him in contempt, nor did the Arkansas bar who disbarred him.

He was not charged with rape, however. He was ruled guilty of lying to a judge and a grand jury constituting an obstruction of justice.

almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades old buddy......

O.J. wasn't "found guilty" either. Insufficient evidence for a finding of guilty is not the same thing as being "found innocent".

Article One: Perjury before the Grand Jury
vote 45 guilty 55 not guilty with 10 republican senators voting NOT guilty.

Article II - 50 guilty - 50 not guilty.

But technically you are correct Dys. They voted to acquit. But nobody can rationally look at what both Dems and GOP members have said and believe everybody voted on the merits of the case. Many if not most voted on the premise that the offense(s) were not sufficient to remove the president from office. The only way they could prevent that was to acquit.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/

There's some interesting stuff at that link, Foxfyre. Good reading, especially in the analysis portion.

ehBeth: Of course the "Toronto Times" and the "Toronto Sun Times" were real newspapers. Otherwise, swolf wouldn't have been able to quote from them. Sure, there is not the slightest bit of proof that they ever existed, but doesn't that make you even a little suspicious? I mean, there is ample evidence attesting to the existence of newspapers like the "Globe & Mail" and the "Toronto Star," but then they didn't publish anti-Clinton articles, did they? And isn't a strange coincidence that no one disputed the fact that the "Times" and the "Sun Times" existed until people like swolf started quoting from their columns? Where was the furor, where was the controversy about these newspapers before they aroused Clinton's ire? Doesn't it strike you as just a little bit odd that these newspapers "disappeared" completely, with every reference to them erased from the internet? And isn't it just too coincidental that Clinton lackey Al Gore invented the internet? And wouldn't it interest you to know that Vince Foster once went to Toronto? The same Vince Foster who was murdered by the Clintons???? I think you'd have to be willfully blind or incredibly naive to miss the obvious connections here.

This is absurdly obvious. We can debate whether or not Clinton should have been put in a position to perjure himself forever, but perjure himself he did, and we all know it.

Psst, Joe, this might be the only chance you'll ever get to agree with me...Take it!

Agree with you about what? That Clinton perjured himself? I don't necessarily agree.

(and, by the way, I've agreed with you on a number of occasions, O'BILL: I'm just too embarrassed to submit a post when that happens)