It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

Forgery would be the lie. The forgery is proven, therefore intent is proven.

The problem is not one of technicalities or lack of evidence. It is in a hopelessly corrupt Congress and Prez who couldn't care less what the people want.

I am constantly amazed at the mental contortions folks will go through to avoid confronting this single, glaring, fact.

FWIW, I did cite specific evidence: Bush's admission he violated FISA (known in legal circles [and I can tell you're not a lawyer] as conclusive evidence], and the order to Meiers et al not to testify before Congress.

As to war time powers, FISA was violated before 9-11, never mind the war. And Bush's own appointee ruled, that is, specifically stated that W's claim of executive privilege re: Meiers et al has no basis and no precedent. Which means, dude, that you're wrong.

I don't support the Democrats, but if they've displayed unusual perceptiveness and cited the same evidence as their talking points, so be it.

From a legal standpoint, it is evidence of the best kind: the accused admitting he broke the law (example one) and a judge ruling he did so.

I'm a lawyer, so I do have a bit of insight into these matters…but you don't have to be one to understand these simple matters.

So tell me, how does your argument, if I may call it such, obviate this? It doesn't matter if these are Mickey Mouse's talking points, or if the lunatic in the alley mumbles them while masturbating over pictures of you…it matters what the courts say on the matter, regardless of what anyone not the courts (mouse, masturbator, democrats) say.

In case you didn't know or notice – your hatred is showing. Anyway, still no evidence…just repeated Democratic Party 'Talking Points.' Have you ever heard of Executive Privilege? Or War Time Powers?

You are all hereby nominated, along with “your” President, for “Worst Person IN the World Honors.” Keep it up, showing us the degrees and levels of your illusion with Mr. “25% approval ratings”, and the only ones with worse ratings are the “9% Approval-Rated Congress.”

In fact, he still continues to blame Clinton, even though after 2002, all the shyt that went down, went down on his watch – Clinton no where on the scene.

That's being fair – don't just dig up Clinton; it sounds too much like Kobe Bryant when he got busted for cheating on his wife, and dragged Shaq into that mess by snitching “Shaq did it, too!”

No one asked about Shaq – Kobe was the one on the hot seat, and he should have manned up. He didn't and neither does Bush; not once in the seven years he's been in office, have I heard him say, “I screwed up; the blame lies with me.”

Even though it was proven that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was the result of Jack Kennedy's own military and CIA going behind his back, he manned up and accepted full responsibility because he was the President. Truman did likewise (”The Buck Stops Here”) and even LBJ stepped down from running for a second term in 1968 because of Vietnam, particularly the Gulf of Tonkin mess.

They took their licks and GeeShrubya always passes the buck.

He also wrote about “The Theft of the Presidency” (not sure about the title), but it was a legal, factual read about how five members of the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution back in 2000 to deliver the White House to your boy, George. In particular, they exploited a loophole which was left open by Al Gore. If Gore demands a recount of all Floridian counties, instead of picking only the counties with concentrated Black or Latino populations, Bush's motion gets tossed. But because Gore cherry-picked the counties for recount, Bush was able to argue his 14th Amendment protections were being violated. And even then, Bush v. Gore was constitutionally required to be settled at the State Court level, which the Florida Supreme Court did (by denying Bush's motion and attempting to award the electoral votes to Gore).

Because there were five justices that allowed their responsibility to interpret and enforce the Constitution get blinded by pure partisanship, they agreed to hear Bush v. Gore, which should, by legal precedent, never should have wound up before them, because the Constitution requires Congress to settle a disputed election like the Presidential election. Because there were enough Republicans in both Houses of Congress that weren't sold on Bush, the Bush camp couldn't take the chance of allowing what was Constitutionally required, even then.

We got the warning he was going to shyt on the Constitution as far back as December 13, 2000. We can't say we weren't warned.

All that to say, get the book and read it for yourself. It looks like your eyes are wide open now.

While I can tell you won't believe me, we already have two instances of flat-out impeachable offenses where ALL the evidence we need is either admitted by the Prez, or already ruled upon by a court, where evidence is the name of the game:
1) Bush admitted to violating FISA by warrantlessly wiretapping Americans. Nixon resigned over this one, pal. A federal court (and Bush appointee) ruled that the law was violated, as well.

2) Bush's DOJ instructed Rove, Meiers and Bolten not to disobey Congressional subpoenas. Another Bush appointee ruled that this violated the law.

You only need one. And that's two.

And lying the country into war, approving of torture, well, you're OK with those. People who think like you have lost their souls and the right to claim humanity. If there is a Hell, its fires burn for you. Good luck.

As I stated above, her paw prints are all over this one, and in fact, Pelosi has a track record for behind the scenes pushing of really piss-poor legislation, then going on record dissing it and voting against it; after she has all but wrote the bill up and signed off on it. She likes having deniability, especially if its a bad piece of legislation.

And I got that from three sources in Congress…direct quotes, too, from staff people in Marcy Kaptor's office (Ohio), former Rep. McKinney's office and current Rep. John Conyers office. It's considered Nancy's M.O. (talk shyt about a bill while facilitating its passage).

Maybe Cindy Sheehan can't unseat her (and I really don't expect her to), but if she sends Nancy back to Congress with a victory margin of less than 50%, that will drown out everything else, because the Speaker will be seen as a weakened Speaker. It might even facilitate a challenge to the Speaker's position from someone in the body that wanted the Speaker's chair all along.

I don't know about Cindy except she brought a lot of embarrassment to Bush, sitting outside his ranch like that; not to mention the injustice of the Iraq War. She doesn't really have to win – she can send a message to Nancy that the constituents won't be ignored like she has done. She might even go out like Al Wynn (barely get re-elected in 2006, Donna Edwards knocks him right on out in 2008).