A thread whereupon Randman (and anyone else who feels like it) can elaborate on statements like:
There was considerable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the [Clinton] White House.
Thus far, his evidence (as laid out in
post 30 of "Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism") seems to be that, in an as-yet unidentified case, Janet Reno denied requests from Congress to enforce subpoenas.
What was being subpoenaed? Well, that is as yet unknown. But, he tells us, it was on the grounds that the cases were in grand jury. What cases were in grand jury? That too is unknown.
He refers to "blatant bribe taking by the DNC and White House," which I think we can all agree is a serious offense. (And so far, the first actual criminal offense listed.) Who, specifically, was bribing whom, and for what? That is, once again, unknown. Apparently Janet Reno stonewalled investigations into this matter; the means by which she did this are as yet... unknown.
Doubtless, as soon as this topic is promoted, Randman will be along to fill in some of the crinklier edges in this already damning indictment.
"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird
™ Version 4.2