HardWorkingDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 05:59 PM
Original message |
Anyone have a link to Tucker Carlson comments about Clinton and perjury... |
|
I'm tired of hearing bowtie boy whine that the CIA outing scandal is no big deal - does anyone have any quotes of Carlson pertaining to Clinton and his grand jury/perjury mess?
|
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 06:01 PM
Response to Original message |
1. not Tucker Carlson, but |
|
But, when Clinton was going through his ordeal, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson thought perjury was hugely important. When it came to Scooter Libby, it was a "perjury technicality" or something like that. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/24/hutchison-flip-flop/
|
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Don't you get it? Disclosing classified information for revenge |
|
and committing perjury are only crimes if you are a Democratic president. These are most certainly NOT crimes when committed by a Republican, and one who is acting on the orders of a Republican president.
sarcasm off
|
robbedvoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 06:03 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Not Tucker but howsabout W? |
|
Asked in 1999 about Clinton's impeachment by the House, Bush responded, "I would have voted for it. I thought the man lied."
|
dogman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Transcript from Friday's Hairball not up yet. |
radfringe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-30-06 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
bowtie(less)-boy pooh-poohed the libby charges of perjury as being penny-ante, waste of time and money
funny - he didn't say that about the clinton charge
|
heartofthesiskiyou
(335 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-29-06 09:02 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Not what your asking for but |
|
on the Carlson subject, He's been particularly out of line on three occasions that I've seen in the last four days or so. He was trying to explain away the Phlame issue as not even against the law and the whole Friz investigation as merit less (paraphrasing) as there wasn't even a law been violated squishing together the theory Bush declassified the intelligence report with the phlame outing (the first arguably legal the second not, and did in fact harm our national security). Once he was called and he didn't challenge back, the other two fact twists stood unchallenged. He's usually not that blatant, is he loosing it?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:35 PM
Response to Original message |