Well, actually I can't bring you the report. See lawyers of Clinton and co are fighting hard to seal the report so it never sees the light of day.

But I can bring you a link that perhaps is worth discussing.

http://www.nysun.com/article/25388

Fandros

Shhhh Fandros.... We don't bring up the Clintons.

ummm


To read this article in its entirety, you must be a subscriber to NYSun.com

PLease take this objectively.

Seems like a republican influnced newspaper, tyring to take focus off the current NYTimes reports.

Take objectively, Grey now now you can't spin from the left and then ask us to cease fire when we spin from the right. It's foul I tell you foul!!


15 yard penalty!!!

Fandros

Grey does not spin right? NY Times is the pinnical of objective reporting...

Google ( or your pref search engine ) Barrett report and read up where you find appropriate. I think if this was given the light of day could go along way towards stopping govt abuse of powah...

Restrict lobbyists....

No rider bills....

Nuke the IRS!!!! Flat/fair tax please

etc etc....

See I don't want much, just the impossible during my lifetime....

Fandros

this is not because its clinton, but i could give two flying fucks about what a now ex-president may have done, until they have fully investigated what the current president has done.

If in 2009 the new president fucks up, i wont give a shit what is currently being investigated about bush, i will care about the current president, cause he is the one in power.

Yes Clinton fucked up, yes it needs to be brought to the publics attention, and yes action may need to be taken legally. BUT lets spin our wheels on the guy curently calling the shots, and crating/editting/removing policy in the government.

I love the logic.

Conservatives rail about how the NYTimes is biased, or slanted in its reporting. And I agree it is, the editorial page is pretty damn liberal. But for the most part, NYTimes does some of the best reporting of any Newspaper on the planet.
But what is their response? They totally reject ANYTHING from them and instead turn to sources that are 100x more biased and basically political propaganda machines. NYSun, Newsmax, Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Most of Faux News.... all these are a joke in regards to honest reporting. They slant WAAAY more than any allegedly liberal publication. And they do it inb order to intentionally decieve or act as a apparatus to "CATAPAULT THE PROPAPAGANDA"

What that tells me is that its not bias that Conservatives hate, its opposing viewpoints.

They dont want challenge or debate. They want affirmation

Yes Clinton fucked up, yes it needs to be brought to the publics attention


Oh dont worry about that....soon Abramoff will dime out everyone he bought off, there will be plenty of..but..but Clinton got a blowjob or Clinton let people pay to sleep at the whitehouse. Of course you'll also hear that it's all a liberal conspiracy designed to destroy the contry and everything that Abramoff paid for.

Rover please do not forget the little issue of his legal fund money....

Rover please do not forget the little issue of his legal fund money....

Ahh, would those be the legal funds he needed to fight the multi-million dollar (public tax monies, btw) republican attempt to shame him and drive him from office, all because of their sour grapes that Bush Sr lost the White House?

lol By, makes you wonder if Kenneth Starr is sitting on some tropical island laughing his ass off and counting his cash.

Shhhh Fandros.... We don't bring up the Clintons.
Who are you fooling? That's all you bring up. Makes me long for the days of Fanny's Ted Kennedy rants.

Ted Kennedy is a waste of flesh that'll burn in a special watery grave one day.

However, I don't think he's linked to this particular abuse of power. His forte', nay his legacy, is obstruction, not blackmail by means of the IRS.

Fandros

Ahh, would those be the legal funds he needed to fight the multi-million dollar (public tax monies, btw) republican attempt to shame him and drive him from office, all because of their sour grapes that Bush Sr lost the White House?

how about other money then? And before I am asked what right-wing paper I got this from.. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/23/clinton.china/



Former Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told Justice investigators that he passed on to the Democratic Party more than $100,000 from Liu Chao Ying, an official of a Chinese aerospace company who is also an officer in the Chinese army and the daughter of a top official in the Beijing regime.
After the donation, Clinton approved a waiver that allowed Loral Space and Communications -- whose chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, is a leading Democratic Party donor -- to launch one of its satellites on top of a Chinese rocket.



Or lets not forget http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/12/huang.sentence/

This guy was a PERSONAL friend of the President..

And just read this link. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/August/357crm.htm

Look at the charges and then sit back and lets talk about how pristine the Clinton adminstration was. Oh,, and why does this matter? How about the possibility of that family getting back to the White House again....

It is not a matter of "look what Clinton did, so Bush can do it too!" Your arguing that is like setting fire to a gasoline soaked strawman on Halloween.

It's all transparent. The very same people who are collapsing from lack of oxygen over what Bush is doing today sit on their laurels through Clinton's many disgustingly obvious abuse of powers.

no one is denying clintons wrong doings...no person here is, but most republican oriented people are denying Bush has done anything wrong.

I got an idea, lets take the same amount of money spent on Clinton investigations, and open an investigation against Bush....still think he would come out clean?

oh man, can we cut spending SOMEWHERE? Heh.

I got an idea, lets take the same amount of money spent on Clinton investigations, and open an investigation against Bush....still think he would come out clean?

You think they have not investigated Bush yet? The best the other side can do is Plame-gate. What a joke.

Yeah, exposing a CIA agent investigating proliferation of WMDs in a "time of war" against terrorists. What a joke. Can't we find some extramarital sex?

You think they have not investigated Bush yet? The best the other side can do is Plame-gate. What a joke.

Who said bush inst being investigated, but without having hard numbers, we can all pretty much agree the lynching party assembled for Clinton's investigation had a budget quite larger than anything people investigating Bush has.

Who is the special investigative leader for Bush inquiries aka the Bush version of Starr?

Well, I guess he can get his own "personal investigator" when he commits perjury in a court of Law. Lets not forget that Clinton was not impeached over a blowjob..

you are correct, Clinton was not impeached.

Of course he was impeached. But he didn't resign from office.

You are only half right... House of Representives did in fact impeach him...

correct me if I'm wrong, but the "articles of impeachment" passing the House is all that's necessary. After "impeachment" there's supposed to be a Senate trial for conviction.

I know its going to be the ultimate Bush excuse

"Hey we didnt have a trial for CLinton, you owe us one"

Mirr,

My response was not directed at you. you posted while I was writing. Sorry if there was a failure in communication. It was directed at Greystone.

And yes. Clinton did have a trial.. he lied at it. But for some reason, the Senate decided to let it go.

(note: I misread.. Clinton did not have a Senate, but a court trial (starr))