A Note to Breathless Conservatives: Bill Clinton W
Post# of 123736
(Total Views: 151)
Posted On: 04/06/2023 3:39:23 PM
Re: Goosebumps #103416
A Note to Breathless Conservatives: Bill Clinton Was Almost Indicted in 2001, But He Cut a Deal
4/06/2023
https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Lemme lay some history on you conservative motherfuckers now that you're losing your shit over Donald Trump's indictment on a shit-ton of felonies for financial chicanery. I mean, beyond the furious masturbatory screams of "election interference" and "unprecedented" and "partisan politics" and other things that simply aren't assertions of Trump's innocence, just about the stupidest fucking thing you're saying is that "If they can do it to Trump, what will you do when they try to indict a Democratic president?"
I mean, you've got the whine squad turned up to full air raid horn. Smarmy cockmite Jesse Watters urged future prosecutions of Democratic former presidents when (if, really) a Republican is in the White House again. Rep. James "Abortions for Women I Impregnate, But None for You" Comer claimed that prosecutors in Tennessee and Kentucky want to go after Joe Biden and that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg "opened up a can of worms; they’ve set precedents now we can’t go back on."
The Wall Street Journal (motto: "Hard news shell around a soft toxic waste dump of commentary"
declared, "If there was ever a case that opens Pandora’s box, the first indictment of a former President in U.S. history is it," a hyperbolic response that was echoed by other screechy dicks. Of course, Tucker Carlson tuckered carlsonly, saying that Trump wouldn't be indicted if he wasn't running for president. Dumbest of all, Charlie "Forehead of doom" Kirk tweeted, "I bet Bill Clinton is a little nervous he's now fair game."
First, fuck yeah, indict presidents. Presidents should be scared of committing crimes. As just about everyone sane has said, if we had prosecuted Nixon, if we had prosecuted Reagan, if we had prosecuted W. Bush, this shit might not be happening.
We pretend to be this grand and glorious nation of laws but we want to act like a president is a fucking king except for the inconvenience of elections. Absolutely indict criminals. And people who committed crimes that they're hiding shouldn't run for president because that's just dumb. Or Trump. It's hard to separate those two words.
You'll notice I left Bill Clinton out of that list of prosecution-worthy presidents. It's not because I think he shouldn't have been indicted for perjury. He obviously committed it. It's because everyone has fucking forgotten one fact:
They were about to indict Clinton in 2001 when he cut a deal to avoid it.
You got that? When Bill Clinton was at the very end of his presidency, as a result of the Whitewater investigation, the independent counsel, who was then Robert Ray after Kenneth Starr finally got the fuck out, was looking to indict Clinton for perjury about that blow job from Monica Lewinsky. If it had gone forward, Bill Clinton would have been an ex-president when he was indicted.
If he had raged and blustered about it being untrue and told everyone to go fuck themselves with their perjury, he would have been indicted. As an ex-president. Trump could have cut a deal a long time ago, but he didn't go the Clinton route because he refuses to ever say he's wrong because he's a tiny-pricked ego monster.
See, Clinton gave up his law license in Arkansas for five years and paid a $25,000 fine, and he admitted he made false statements about the blow job. And then the whole investigation was closed with a report that pissed off a lot Clinton haters, but that pointed out how much Clinton was actually punished, including an $850k settlement with Paula Jones (google her - I don't feel like going into all that) and a $90,000 fine for contempt of court.
It's also worth noting that the entire Whitewater matter started over a failed real estate deal prior to Clinton's presidency. Google that, too, if you want to sit there and think, "What the fuck?" and "Really?" for a few hours. The fellatio perjury was just something that got folded into it because reasons (mostly that there actually was a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get the Clintons, but, again, google is your friend here, not me).
So, yeah, hysterical right-wingers and Fox "news" liars, maybe shut the fuck up about the "damage" that Trump's indictment will do to democracy. Democracy needs this shit to happen to be stronger. As one editorial board noted, our leaders "should be indicted, upholding the principle that even Presidents and ex-Presidents are not above the law." Strong words. You know who said that? The fucking Wall Street Journal back in January 2001.
Pandora's box, my ass.
4/06/2023
https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Lemme lay some history on you conservative motherfuckers now that you're losing your shit over Donald Trump's indictment on a shit-ton of felonies for financial chicanery. I mean, beyond the furious masturbatory screams of "election interference" and "unprecedented" and "partisan politics" and other things that simply aren't assertions of Trump's innocence, just about the stupidest fucking thing you're saying is that "If they can do it to Trump, what will you do when they try to indict a Democratic president?"
I mean, you've got the whine squad turned up to full air raid horn. Smarmy cockmite Jesse Watters urged future prosecutions of Democratic former presidents when (if, really) a Republican is in the White House again. Rep. James "Abortions for Women I Impregnate, But None for You" Comer claimed that prosecutors in Tennessee and Kentucky want to go after Joe Biden and that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg "opened up a can of worms; they’ve set precedents now we can’t go back on."
The Wall Street Journal (motto: "Hard news shell around a soft toxic waste dump of commentary"
declared, "If there was ever a case that opens Pandora’s box, the first indictment of a former President in U.S. history is it," a hyperbolic response that was echoed by other screechy dicks. Of course, Tucker Carlson tuckered carlsonly, saying that Trump wouldn't be indicted if he wasn't running for president. Dumbest of all, Charlie "Forehead of doom" Kirk tweeted, "I bet Bill Clinton is a little nervous he's now fair game." First, fuck yeah, indict presidents. Presidents should be scared of committing crimes. As just about everyone sane has said, if we had prosecuted Nixon, if we had prosecuted Reagan, if we had prosecuted W. Bush, this shit might not be happening.
We pretend to be this grand and glorious nation of laws but we want to act like a president is a fucking king except for the inconvenience of elections. Absolutely indict criminals. And people who committed crimes that they're hiding shouldn't run for president because that's just dumb. Or Trump. It's hard to separate those two words.
You'll notice I left Bill Clinton out of that list of prosecution-worthy presidents. It's not because I think he shouldn't have been indicted for perjury. He obviously committed it. It's because everyone has fucking forgotten one fact:
They were about to indict Clinton in 2001 when he cut a deal to avoid it.
You got that? When Bill Clinton was at the very end of his presidency, as a result of the Whitewater investigation, the independent counsel, who was then Robert Ray after Kenneth Starr finally got the fuck out, was looking to indict Clinton for perjury about that blow job from Monica Lewinsky. If it had gone forward, Bill Clinton would have been an ex-president when he was indicted.
If he had raged and blustered about it being untrue and told everyone to go fuck themselves with their perjury, he would have been indicted. As an ex-president. Trump could have cut a deal a long time ago, but he didn't go the Clinton route because he refuses to ever say he's wrong because he's a tiny-pricked ego monster.
See, Clinton gave up his law license in Arkansas for five years and paid a $25,000 fine, and he admitted he made false statements about the blow job. And then the whole investigation was closed with a report that pissed off a lot Clinton haters, but that pointed out how much Clinton was actually punished, including an $850k settlement with Paula Jones (google her - I don't feel like going into all that) and a $90,000 fine for contempt of court.
It's also worth noting that the entire Whitewater matter started over a failed real estate deal prior to Clinton's presidency. Google that, too, if you want to sit there and think, "What the fuck?" and "Really?" for a few hours. The fellatio perjury was just something that got folded into it because reasons (mostly that there actually was a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get the Clintons, but, again, google is your friend here, not me).
So, yeah, hysterical right-wingers and Fox "news" liars, maybe shut the fuck up about the "damage" that Trump's indictment will do to democracy. Democracy needs this shit to happen to be stronger. As one editorial board noted, our leaders "should be indicted, upholding the principle that even Presidents and ex-Presidents are not above the law." Strong words. You know who said that? The fucking Wall Street Journal back in January 2001.
Pandora's box, my ass.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼