grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Everybody was up in arms when Bill Clinton lied about sex.
>
> Bush lied about something much more important.
>
> He told falsehoods to make it more palatable to get America into an unprecedented,
> aggressive military campaign.
>
> He knowingly lied when trying to convince the nation that war was justified.
>
The invasion of Iraq was justified and hardly unprecedented. Think about
what 42 did in the Balkans, what 41 did in Panama, what 40 did in Libya
and Grenada.

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:beprj7$6d5$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3f106937$1@news.sti.net...
> >
> > <grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:afp0hvc8uiqmheqo90mvtjha7gb06v9hj3@4ax.com...
> > > SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Sex with employees will get you fired most anywhere.
>
> LOL
> Not really.

If they complain like Jones and it is a lie about a patern of behavior, yes
indeed; you will be fired.

Notice that the "patern of behavior" standard is the one Bennett lied before
the Court, in Clinton's de facto perjury. Clinton was later disbarred for
the lie.

"qwerty" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:wN1Qa.330$8C6.202@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3f1083f0@news.sti.net...
> >
> > <rightwing@nutty.com> wrote in message
> > news:8vv0hv0slcftk2g7rh3bdjsib45ekf3itt@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:38:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jtarver@sti.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:beprj7$6d5$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3f106937$1@news.sti.net...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:afp0hvc8uiqmheqo90mvtjha7gb06v9hj3@4ax.com...
> > > >> > > SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sure.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sex with employees will get you fired most anywhere.
> > > >>
> > > >> LOL
> > > >> Not really.
> > > >
> > > >If they complain like Jones and it is a lie about a patern of
behavior,
> > yes
> > > >indeed; you will be fired.
> > >
> > > Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
> >
> > No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on the
part
> > of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law, as
> > practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
>
> Please quote Clinton's perjurous testimony and how it's perjury according
to
> the "Rule of Law" as set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court of these United States never took up Jones v Clinton,
except to Order the case to go forward, while Clinton was still in office.

Do you mean Clinton's "no contest" to the santions for his perjury?

"qwerty" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
news:%u4Qa.285$NL3.65@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. .
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3f10ab98@news.sti.net...
> >
> > "qwerty" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
> > news:wN1Qa.330$8C6.202@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3f1083f0@news.sti.net...
> > > >
> > > > <rightwing@nutty.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8vv0hv0slcftk2g7rh3bdjsib45ekf3itt@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:38:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > <jtarver@sti.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:beprj7$6d5$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:3f106937$1@news.sti.net...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > <grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > >> > news:afp0hvc8uiqmheqo90mvtjha7gb06v9hj3@4ax.com...
> > > > > >> > > SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sure.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sex with employees will get you fired most anywhere.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> LOL
> > > > > >> Not really.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If they complain like Jones and it is a lie about a patern of
> > behavior,
> > > > yes
> > > > > >indeed; you will be fired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
> > > >
> > > > No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on
the
> > part
> > > > of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law, as
> > > > practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
> > >
> > > Please quote Clinton's perjurous testimony and how it's perjury
according to
> > > the "Rule of Law" as set forth by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
> >
> > The Supreme Court of these United States never took up Jones v Clinton,
> > except to Order the case to go forward, while Clinton was still in
office.
>
> So? Clinton was never charged with perjury in Jone's civil case. Did you
> not claim above that Clinton committed perjury? What does the Supreme
Court
> say constitutes perjury according to the "Rule of Law"? What part of
> Clinton's testimony is perjury and how is is pejury based on the "Rule of
> Law"?
>
> > Do you mean Clinton's "no contest" to the santions for his perjury?
>
> LOL, please provide a credible cite where Clinton pled "no contest" to
> perjury, or even admitted to perjury or was sanctioned for the crime of
> perjury.

Clinton did so with the Arkansas Bar.

Billy really did all this stuuff and got away with it, for the most part. I
can't see your complaint.

rightwing@nutty.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:34:17 -0700, Bill Bonde <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> >> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> >>
> >> Everybody was up in arms when Bill Clinton lied about sex.
> >>
> >> Bush lied about something much more important.
> >>
> >> He told falsehoods to make it more palatable to get America into an unprecedented,
> >> aggressive military campaign.
> >>
> >> He knowingly lied when trying to convince the nation that war was justified.
> >>
> >The invasion of Iraq was justified and hardly unprecedented. Think about
> >what 42 did in the Balkans, what 41 did in Panama, what 40 did in Libya
> >and Grenada.
>
> He didn't lie about why we needed to go to the "balkans", BONDELOON
>
The lie was FOR HOW LONG. He claimed a year when everyone knew that was
a lie. This is fact. I heard his people give testimony and get questions
by disbelieving congresspersons.

"Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
news:3f10df06@news.sti.net...
>
> "qwerty" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
> news:%u4Qa.285$NL3.65@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com.. .
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f10ab98@news.sti.net...
> > >
> > > "qwerty" <nospam@all.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wN1Qa.330$8C6.202@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3f1083f0@news.sti.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > <rightwing@nutty.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8vv0hv0slcftk2g7rh3bdjsib45ekf3itt@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:38:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > <jtarver@sti.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:beprj7$6d5$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> news:3f106937$1@news.sti.net...
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > <grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> > news:afp0hvc8uiqmheqo90mvtjha7gb06v9hj3@4ax.com...
> > > > > > >> > > SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Sure.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Sex with employees will get you fired most anywhere.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> LOL
> > > > > > >> Not really.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >If they complain like Jones and it is a lie about a patern of
> > > behavior,
> > > > > yes
> > > > > > >indeed; you will be fired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
> > > > >
> > > > > No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on
> the
> > > part
> > > > > of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law,
as
> > > > > practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
> > > >
> > > > Please quote Clinton's perjurous testimony and how it's perjury
> according to
> > > > the "Rule of Law" as set forth by the Supreme Court of the United
> States.
> > >
> > > The Supreme Court of these United States never took up Jones v
Clinton,
> > > except to Order the case to go forward, while Clinton was still in
> office.
> >
> > So? Clinton was never charged with perjury in Jone's civil case. Did
you
> > not claim above that Clinton committed perjury? What does the Supreme
> Court
> > say constitutes perjury according to the "Rule of Law"? What part of
> > Clinton's testimony is perjury and how is is pejury based on the "Rule
of
> > Law"?
> >
> > > Do you mean Clinton's "no contest" to the santions for his perjury?
> >
> > LOL, please provide a credible cite where Clinton pled "no contest" to
> > perjury, or even admitted to perjury or was sanctioned for the crime of
> > perjury.
>
> Clinton did so with the Arkansas Bar.

BS! Please cite where Clinton pled "no contest" to perjury, or even
admitted to perjury or was sanctioned for the crime of perjury.

> Billy really did all this stuuff and got away with it, for the most part.
I
> can't see your complaint.

You're LYING! That's my complaint!

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:54:31 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote:

>> Jones lied, or at least her case was TOSSED out, Tarverloon
>
>No, Bennett lied before the Court, about a pattern of behavior on the part
>of William Jefferson Clinton III. That lie, under Arkansas Law, as
>practiced in Little Rock Federal Court, was Clinton's own perjury.
>Therefore Jones v Clinton was reinstated and Clinton was refered to the Bar
>and disbarred. Clinton settled with Jones for about 3 times the maximum she
>could have received from the Court.

You dumb ****, Tarverloon

Not only are your conclusions silly as shit, but your facts are all wrong

a) Bennett has no "duty" to prove his Clients veracity one way or other, so even IF a
"pattern" was there, Bennett had nothing to do with it.

b) A "pattern" of "behavior" has never been legally credible by having "multiple",
single-source allegations lumped together. If that were the case, Anyone could manipulate
a legal suit. The only accepted standard of evidence is multiple sources for every
single claim.

c) The lawsuit was "reinstated" on appeal you ignorant asshole. That merely means the
higer court ruled a "jury", not a single judge was required. Wright accepted ALL of
Jones's testimony and claims and still ruled she lost. Clinton got to present NO
defense, no cross-examination, no rebuttal .........and STILL WON.

>

"The commandments carry no internal evidence of
divinity with them; they contain some good moral
precetps, such as any man qualified to be a
law-giver, or a legislator, cold produce himself,
whithout any recourse to supernatural intervention"

Thomas Paine; FOUNDER

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:43:45 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote:

>The Supreme Court of these United States never took up Jones v Clinton,
>except to Order the case to go forward, while Clinton was still in office.

Jone's case was appealed after Clinton WON by judgment

THe court ruled that a JURY, not a single judge had to the decision.

Wright ruled for Clinton after accepting ALL of Jones testimony as "TRUTH" and she still
lost.

>Do you mean Clinton's "no contest" to the santions for his perjury?

You still cannot cite any testimony by clinton that qualifies as "perjury" that can pass a
legal laugh test.

Neither Starr, nor Ray had any new evidence other that what was already given in
depositions, and no legal authority gave it any hope of being prosecutable----even if the
dumb asshole Ray could get a DC Grand Jury to indict, and certainly not if a jury trial
were held in the DC Circuit.


---------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chris01@ameritech.net> wrote:

>Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.

No, MORTONLOON

All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, ass-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.

>Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus.