"Insufficient evidence" is the Independent Council's term. After a long list of smears they finally say insufficient evidence to prosecute. I guess they had to try to justify the millions spent somehow. Bottom line: No Proof (again)Clinton did anything wrong. Period.
And how did the Susan McDougal imprisonment end? She was ordered released because Ken Starr had imprisoned her for refusing to sign on to a list of false charges he wrote up. I give Susan tremendous credit for doing jail time rather than buckling under to Starr's unethical pressure tactics.
As for the rest of Clinton's friends and associates who left the country, it is pretty clear from the Susan McDougal case what they faced from Ken Starr just for knowing the president. No need to have done anything wrong, just refuse to go along with Ken Starr's agenda and end up in the slammer.
Btw, Clinton was never convicted of obstructing justice. (As if "justice" would be served by knowing the details of his personal sex life.)
Current Events » in reply to "Insufficient evidence to prosecute" a sitting president...
Re:
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Remarks by Terry McAuliffe, DNC
- The level of the conservative comentators is hardly scintillating
- Questions to ask your candidates
- A few more remarks by Terry McAuliffe, DNC
- When McAuliffe speaks, you can barely see clinton's lips move.
- Hey, come on. Where are all the liberal commenters? (n/t) (n/t)
- McAuliffe
- As long as the DNC is the party of division...