...

 MG>>> I remember him giving her a pass just as he gave her
 MG>>> husband a pass on the perjury.

 BK>>  Yet, after all this time, not one of the right wingers can show
 BK>>  this perjury. Neither could the special prosecutor. Rather, none  of
 BK>> the special prosecutors could.

 BA> In point of fact I did *not* give her husband a 'pass' on
 BA> the perjury charge. And Stan is mistaken, I certainly did
 BA> not give Hillary! a 'pass' on ignoring that subpoena for
 BA> those records.

 They don't care about truth. I do not know if she ignored the
 subpoena or really did lose the records. Since the records, when
 they were found, they supported her case, I see no reason to
 ignore a subpoena. Since a second set was found independently
 they could cross check and verify that the records were
 accurate.

 As to the perjury, none of them can show where he ever actually
 committed perjury. They are depending on false claims about what
 he said in testimony, and their *interpretation* of his words.

 It ain't perjury if you believe it's true. That's the key point.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Tell me again...My memory refresh missed a few cycles.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a