Author Topic: Condit (Read 2819 times)

Toad · « **on:** July 09, 2001, 12:13:00 AM »

Since mid-may this little weasel has been denying... always through his "spokespeople"... that he was ever romantically involved with Chandra Levy.

Oops. Guess that's not exactly right, according to what he told the DC police.

In the old days, you'd call him a liar.

Now, we'll soon see that his "spokespeople" repeatedly misunderstood what he meant for them to say. That's what spokespeople do... provide deniablity, right?

Because HE would never lie. (Oh, wait... it's OK to lie about this right? It was a "personal relationship". I forgot about the new "definition of "is" is" clause. Sorry.)

Jeez. Some days I'm glad I'm getting older. I figure about the time I check out from natural causes it'll be just about perfect.

Because the STENCH of politicians will be undoubtedly be choking me to DEATH by then.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

mrfish · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2001, 12:24:00 AM »

local news just quoted his snake err attorney as saying: he doesnt owe anyone an explanation but the police.

um how about his constituents, the family, his wife,........etc

what a ratbag

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]

StSanta · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2001, 02:41:00 AM »

This was one of the guys who critizised Clinton.

I just love the irony

.

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2001, 06:04:00 AM »

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I don't think Condit owes the media a damn thing. I've seen a number of articles stating that "Condit should have a press conference and set this all straight so we can move forward." As if the media were somehow part of the criminal process.

The police in D.C. have stated that Condit was not a suspect before their interview, he was not a suspect during the interview, and he's still not a suspect after the interview. As far as the police are concerned, Condit has nothing to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

On the other hand, Condit could have avoided this entire mess if he would have answered the questions of his constituency and Levy's family rather than play duck and run.

It's his own fault. Maybe he'll figure that out when he's back in California with a REAL job.

Eagler · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2001, 07:30:00 AM »

He was one of the last ppl to see her alive. That makes him a suspect in my book. He's a liar, an adulter, a cheat ... perfect creditials for a politician now a days

By telling the police they were just "friends", gave him ample time to remove any evidence if there was any. Amazing what ppl with power and $$$ can get away with these days ..

Sandman · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2001, 07:56:00 AM »

So he lied about an affair. So what?

What are you going to do about it? Impeach him? Hah! That was fun the last time. Let's do it again.

Whether you or or the media or I consider Condit a suspect or not is irrelevant. His status as a suspect is a police issue.

So he's an adulterer. Again, so what? I don't care what Condit does with his dick. If he's not faithful to his marriage, this is his wife's issue.

As a politician, it is Condit's duty to represent the interests of his constituency. What he does in his spare time is (once again) not our business.

Quote

Matthew 7:1-5
1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Quote

Luke 6:37
37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

NHFoxtro · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2001, 07:58:00 AM »

I heard, but don't know how true it is,the police were questioning the wife now. Who knows, maybe she found out about the affair and took matters into her own hands.

Even tho there is no proof yet,and I'm not positive they are questioning her, but it also should be investigated as well.

Toad · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2001, 07:58:00 AM »

From Day One all he needed to have his "ministers of disinformation" tell the media was "It's none of your business." I have no problem with that at all. He would be correct and it would actually show some brass. I'd have saluted him for that.

Instead, he directed them to lie.

It isn't about adultery at all. I don't care what he does in his personal life either.

It's about an elected representative once again deliberately lying to the public.

I think he had three choices. Refuse to comment. Admit it. Lie about it. Choices one or two are fine by me either way. Choice three makes him undeserving of his office in my book.

Dealing with the police is another matter. He should have told them the truth from the beginning; we'll never know if that would or would not make a difference in finding Levy dead or alive.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

Sandman · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:03:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NHFoxtro:
I heard, but don't know how true it is,the police were questioning the wife now. Who knows, maybe she found out about the affair and took matters into her own hands.

If that is the case, she's got a list of women to tend to. Condit has a history of marital infidelity. I suspect, that like Hillary, she knew it and knew it all along.

Eagler · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:08:00 AM »

Sandman
Guess anyone can be your politician eh?
I prefer one with some sort of ethics and morals, but they seem far and few between. How do you know his screwing around was "in his spare time" and not on the taxpayers nickel? Your mentor slick willie as lower the bar and many seem eager to follow...

Sandman · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:36:00 AM »

Clinton didn't invent political philandering. He wasn't the first and he certainly isn't the last.

There have been others...

Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson... just to name a few.

What the president (or congressman) does with his noodle has nothing to do with his ability to represent the people. We are electing someone to represent us, the unwashed masses. I'd prefer it if he had a little dirt of his own. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.

Apache · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:48:00 AM »

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice in Sandmans list that none of those Presidents were Republican?

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:56:00 AM »

Hehe... that's right... Republicans don't have a noodle.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

Toad · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2001, 08:58:00 AM »

So, Sandman are you deliberately "spinning" this thread or have you missed the point unintentionally?

You are turning this into another Clintonesque sex discussion. That's not what it's about.

The POINT is that he could just as easily had his Ministers of Disinformation say "No Comment" or "this is a personal matter and none of your business" and then walk away from the microphones.

Instead, Condit had them deliberately LIE to the public.

I don't care if Condit has sexual relations with underage sheep or gets off auroerotically rolling around in lime jello. That's his business as long as he breaks no laws or harms no other individuals.

I DO care that he chooses to LIE rather than say "my personal life is none of your business."

The issue is NOT whether the press has the right to ask. They can _ask_ anything they want to ask.

No one HAS to answer those scandalmongers. Condit is the one that made the choice. Now HE has made his personal life a topic for the Jerry Springers of the media.

Integrity. That is the focus of this topic.

Sandman · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2001, 09:06:00 AM »

Quote

So, Sandman are you deliberately "spinning" this thread or have you missed the point unintentionally?
You are turning this into another Clintonesque sex discussion. That's not what it's about.

It's not me! I simply responded.

In this regard, I somewhat agree with you Toad. I'm disappointed in Condit for exactly the same reason I was disappointed with Clinton. Neither has the courage to stand up and say, "It's none of your business. Next question?"

Edit: Did it again... didn't I? Oh... and yeah, it was me that made the reference to impeachment. Okay... I'll shut up now. Condit is lying, adulterous, spineless, cowardly scum!

Whew... I feel better now.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]