MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
no because you have now changed the debate to fit your evidence, as you have thrown a great deal at the wall at once and deciding what is worthy or not. Apparently due to your particular ideological stance it appears its a problem and 'partisan' to investigate why Livingstone yes, cheif of sec. should be collecting fbi files on 900 prominent rep.s so in the end, if anyone bush Reagan Kennedy had done as much yes they should be investigated...so this debate is at a dead end in this context. thx for posting it though.
Regarding Livingston, it was undoubtedly a credible issue for investigation, but TWO YEARS?
I fail to see why a congressional investigations length has a bearing if there was wrong doing? 2 years ? How long did Rangel dangle? whats up with maxine waters? they drag it out hoping it goes away and no this is not a strictly dem. phenomena. they all do it.
The bottom line is that Republicans felt they needed to have some investigation in motion at all times in order to make themselves look credible. And in the end, almost all of it backfired, except the Lewinsky investigation which was ironically an offshoot of Whitewater which also failed their test.
I am sorry MM, that is simply not true; one example, by the end of the 90's decade, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.And say, Webster Hubbell? Cisneros, Espy? Tyson foods? Ron Brown 'escaped' by dieing...
When I say their investigations backfired, I mean as they effected Clinton's continuing popularity. And yes, ALL administrations have had their share of scandals, especially regarding campaign violations. But I don't intend to go tit for tat on this, since you can look up Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, the purchase of Bush43's Ohio win for reelection, and any number of other shady dealings that both parties engage in (or attempt to).