I gather from your signature that you're a Bush fan. Are you aware of all the rumors, conspiracy theories, and gossip concerning your hero? You should do a google search.

Do you believe then, that he was involved in the 9/11 plot? That he personally killed JFK Jr. That he's a member of a super secret society bent on world domination? After all, rumors start for a reason. Right?

__________________
You know all that stuff you learned from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly? It's all a lie. Pass it on!

I wear the neg-reps of Neo-Cons, Racists and other (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags with pride, like feathers in my cap.

Neg Reps to date 18

And often they don't.



Breaking News
Clinton Acknowledges His Brother-in-Law Received Money for Pardons, Asked Money to Be Returned
Aired February 21, 2001 - 5:32 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BERNARD SHAW, CNN ANCHOR: We now have some breaking news and CNN Capitol Hill correspondent Bob Franken has joined us now here in the studio -- Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: CNN has learned that former President Clinton is about to put out a statement in which he will acknowledge that his brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, received a sum of money to represent two clients who were given pardons by the president. They two are Almon Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali, both of them controversial.

The statement will go on to say that the president and first lady asked him to return the money, the brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham. who is an attorney. Rodham in fact did return the money. He will say that he regrets this. That it was bad judgment. but that there was nothing illegal about it and at no time, will say Rodham, was there any communication between the president and first lady.

Now a little background about the two cases. One of them involves Almon Glenn Braswell. He was pardoned for a 1983 conviction on a mail fraud claim, a false claims about a baldness product. In fact, he's still under investigation by the Justice Department in connection with his vitamin and supplement business.

The other case involves Carlos Vignali, who was freed after serving six years of a 15-year term for a role in a cocaine trafficking ring. This is something that has gotten quite controversial in California.

President Clinton did pardon both of those, and Hugh Rodham is the person who represented them. He said that there was no direct communication with the president but that he has returned the money.

And we have a statement now from President Clinton saying that: "Yesterday, I became aware of press inquiries that Hugh Rodham received a contingency fee in connection with a pardon application by Glenn Braswell and fee for work on the Carlos Vignali commutation application.

"Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments. We were deeply disturbed by these reports and have insisted that Hugh return any monies involved." And as I said, we are hearing from a source close to the situation that the money has been returned -- Bernie.

SHAW: Bob Franken, do we know whether Mrs. Clinton's brother-in- law Hugh Rodham informed the Clintons that he had received a contingency fee and funds for working on the case of Carlos Vignali?

FRANKEN: At this particular point we don't know that. He did say that he had no communication with the president while he still was still president about this matter. Now, it first came to light, I should point out, in a "National Enquirer" case which talks strictly about the Braswell case.

The "National Enquirer" says that it's talking about a $200,000 payment. There is no specification in the Vignali case, but we have no discussion about whether or not Rodham actually talked to the president and the first lady about the return of the money.

SHAW: OK, I misspoke. Hugh Rodham, of course, Mrs. Clinton's brother. Our senior political analyst Bill Schneider is here. Obvious why the Clintons want to get a statement out in reaction to this.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, certainly, because this is -- it may not be illegal, but it certainly is a questionable judgment and may be challenged on ethical grounds. This is a fairly serious matter continues the controversy over the Clinton pardons way beyond what they ever expected.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../21/bn.02.html

Change "often" to "extremely rarely", and you're right. Which is why I'm not dismissing the possibility outright. But "the National Enquirer said so" isn't proof of anything.

And that was back when it was trying to do respectable journalism. It was a short-lived phase. They're back to trashy celebrity stories and paparazzi press.

__________________
Man up.

So the round glass like object in the middle of the photogogs forehead was the lens !!! GOT IT !!!!

__________________
"Oh bury me, then rise ye up,And break your heavy chains, water with the tyrants' blood, The freedom you have gained." Тарáс Григóрович ШевчéнкоT.Shevchenko- Poet of Ukraine

You dismiss it out of hand.

They have been on Edwards on his affair for over a year, and they would not make this up and post it against a TRIAL LAWYER unless they have indisputable proof.

Um, no I didn't. I said "it's entirely possible Edwards is having an affair." I merely note that the Enquirer's say so isn't enough to prove it.

.... and gotten nowhere....

Sure they would. They do it all the time with other famous people, all of whom can afford really good lawyers. They're protected by the excellent libel laws in this country, which basically require a public figure like Edwards to prove that the Enquirer knowingly and maliciously lied. Which is mighty hard to prove, even when it's true.

But if they have indisputable proof.... let's see it. If they haven't shown it yet, what are they waiting for?

Until they show their proof, the story is merely allegations from a non-credible source.

__________________
Man up.

When did people besides tarot readers start using the National Enquirer as a source?

__________________
Acceptance is the answer

"Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?"

Right-wingers think that because Drudge is linking it, it has credibility.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Yikes. Gonna have to get a more reputable source than NI before I start putting any faith in this story.

__________________

...appreciates all the pub he's getting.

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde