Re: DEAR KENLOON-----"YOU AIN"T WINNING"-----I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT ! !

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:49:49 -0600, Ken
<ken@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> I proved that the latter is the case---making you the
>> laughing stock you are worse than before.
>> 
>>> 	Lastly you seem to enjoy the episode where "Slick" took out his *****

>>> and asked a resident of Arkansas to kiss it. 
>> 
>> By "resident" do you mean Lewinsky?
>
>	I hope you have newspapers where you live, for it was Paula Jones who 
>was asked to kiss his *****. 

WRONG AGAIN----KENLOON

That's what she CLAIMED----and couldn't prove it.

Judge Wright Threw out the case---awarded Judgment to
Clinton.

> It is YOU who constantly keeps going back 
>to the case and citing the definition he gave when questioned under 
>oath.

THat's because NO EVIDENCE ever existed to sup****t ANY
of Jones claims, KENLOON

NONE.

Isn't the American "Rule of law" such that BEFORE you
can deem someone guilty---_EVIDENCE must be offered to
sup****t an allegation?

THere has never been ANY fact, or evidence that
sup****ted ANY of the claims against the
Clintons-----NONE

So the PRINCIPLE(s) you use to label them "liars",
"immoral", and "untrustworthy" cannot be fulfilled by
applying the "rule of law"

As a so-called (but proven sham..) Conservative, you
consistently evoke "Moral principles", "ethics" and
"honesty"-----but fail to follow your own code of
principles.

Reagan LIED his ass off under oath---

Reagan KNEW he was lying

Reagan KNEW his lies would affect the legal outcome of
various criminal cases involving his staff or
appointees

Reagan ADMITTED he "lied under oath"

Reagan Fulfilled the 3 requirements under the US Code
pertaining to "perjury", and admitted it.

OTOH, You cannot find a single shred of evidence to
sup****t ANY of your allegations (nor could the entire
rightwing engaged in smearing clinton)----yet piss on
nearly every "principle" conservatism is Supposed to
embrace when calling the Clintons "liars" and/or
Criminals.

Finally, the "DEFINITION" was the determinant of the
case against Clinton in impeachment----and the "Denial"
that he gave to the Grand Jury Question

The Jan 1998 Deposition CLEARLY has Judge Wright
telling Jones attorneys that:  "Mr Clinton has a LEGAL
RIGHT to deny THAT definition...."