Associated Press wrote:WASHINGTON -- An Arkansas state trooper who guarded then-Gov. Clinton says he confirmed falsehoods about Clinton's reported marital infidelities as part of a proposed tell-all book project, The New Yorker says....
...The New Yorker, in its edition on newsstands today, said Anderson claims in the affidavit that in discussions with other troopers about a proposed book on Clinton's marital cheating he confirmed stories about the president even though he knew many "were nothing more than old fish tales, with little, if any, basis in fact.".....
.....The New Yorker and Time magazine, in its latest edition, both quote Anderson as saying that Cliff Jackson, an Arkansas lawyer and longtime Clinton foe, offered the troopers jobs outside Arkansas for seven years for $100,000 a year in exchange for their cooperation in publicizing alleged Clinton scandals.
Source: Associated Press
So McGentrix comes up with a suposedly damaging story about one of the debunkers.
Salon wrote:Three other sources, however, confirmed the story. Two of those sources, Roger Perry and Cliff Jackson, told their stories in taped, on-the-record interviews. A third individual spoke on the condition of anonymity.
McGentrix wrote:That's some stand up source you are using for "facts"
Okay, McGentrix-and what are YOUR sources?
One is anonymous. Perry is one of the state troopers who Anderson and Ferguson said made up stories in hope of getting money from the book and $100,000 a year job. Cliff Jackson was the guy behind the book AND the bribes.
Once more, I told you all about Perry and Jackson in previous posts, complete with corroboration. Then you come back and try to use this discredited duo to bolster your argument.
Look, McGentirx, the jig is up. Clinton-hater Cliff Jackson concocted this scheme to have state troopers guarding then-governor Clinton to come up wth sex stories. Two of the troopers admitted that it was basically a hoax, they made stuff up to get the money. Then McGentrix comes along and tries to take the word of the other two as meaning anything. Unbelievable.
McGentrix wrote:I do not understand why you want to defend Clinton's obvious repeated behavior. I also do not understand why you do not condemn it, instead you seem to praise it as though you expect that kind of thing to take place.
Because Clinton might have a sex life outside of marriage, but that does not justify the vicious campaign of lies and bribes to make him seem other than what he is. He likes to play around, he gets some on the side. But that seems to be as far as it goes.
I can understand that a married man, even under oath, can deny an affair that he in fact had. It's not right, but it is understandable.
But the Republicans seem to have lost all respect for truth in their insane campaign to get Clinton.
I'm very sorry, but morally speaking, bribing people to make up untrue, damaging stories about someone for a book is far, far worse than a married man denying an affair. Clinton's critics claim they are morally offended by his behavior, but their own behavior is far, far worse.
