...duh!

 I saw "Miss Sensationalism" last night on Hardballs with Chris the Screamer.
 Of course, they were discussing Gary Condit.

 Quinn and the Screamer agreed that,
 "Everybody thinks Condit was involved with the murder of Chandra Levy."

 Even at the Comedy Treehouse, I wouldn't level such an idiotic, unfounded charge.
  bartcop.com , a humor publication, has higher ethical standards than these highly-paid, nasty ass whores.

 I think Condit is guilty of misleading police, back when the trail was hot,
 back when they had a chance to find her, Condit had them chasing the wild goose.
 I think "hindering prosecution" would be a good charge to level against him - but murder?

 You have to be a sensationalistic nasty ass whore to link Condit to her murder, at this point,
 but Chris the Screamer and Sally Quinn fit that description tighter than OJ's driving gloves.

 In contrast, Larry King had the usual gang on last night.  Barbie Olson (R-Fries),
 Laura Ingraham, who sounded like an adult compared to Barbie, Juan Epstein and Mark Garegos.

 It's interesting to me because I mostly agree with Olson and Ingraham, and I disagree with
 my old allies Epstein and Garegos who continue to insist, "There is no crime here."

 Poppycock!

 How does that saying go?
 "When you don't have the facts, argue the law.
   When you don't have the law, argue the facts."

 Olson and Ingraham have the facts and Epstein and Garegos have the law.

 Check out this craziness from my man Mark Garegos:
 "You haven't heard the D.C. police say in any way, shape or form
   that he hasn't been cooperating. He's done everything he needs to do."

 That's clearly horseshit but it may be technically true because the DC cops have been fawning
 over Mr Guilty from the start. The FACT that it took three interviews and 70 days to get the truth
 of the affair out of Condit proves he has NOT fully cooperated, unless the DC cops are even more
 incompetent than I think, which is almost impossible.

 Mark, you're a great attorney, doing what you can but please ease up on the shinola.

 Garegos continues:
 But as far as him owing anything more than what he's done, which is to put his wife
 in there, have her interviewed, to put himself there and be talked to by the police
 three times, cooperate in any way, shape or form, I don't know what more he can do.

 Mark, I have an idea, I'm surprised you haven't thought of it.
 If I was Condit's attorney, (and he was innocent of everything but the affair) I'd do this:
 I'd have my client talk to a single reporter and make this solemn vow:

"I swear to my constituents that there is no more bad news to come.
  I give you my word there are no other secrets to be revealed, no other shoe to drop.
  I tried to hide my affair and I was wrong, but that's it - there's nothing else.
  If one other piece of hidden evidence comes out against me, I will not run for office again."

 That would half convince me Condit was innocent from here on out - unless something else comes up.
 If Condit's not willing to make that statement, that means there's definitely more to come.

 Of course, it's a bluff, because if any other evidence comes out, he's politically dead, anyway.
 He's probably already dead, so he's got nothing to lose.

 And I loooooooooooove to see those reruns of him chasing Clinton's cock.
 He was so adamant that Clinton come clean and confess all, when he KNEW impeachmant
 was nothing more than a Gingrich/Helms/Delay attempt to screw Clinton.

 And politicians don't have the same protection under the law.
 Clinton couldn't take the fifth on Monica because he couldn't.
 Any other "suspect" would have, and Clinton's enemies knew that.

 Impeachment was never about the "rule of law," and all honest people admit that.
 But Condirt has a dead girl on his hands, and when the trail was hot,
 he intentionally mislead the cops so they'd chase dead ends.

 That's a crime in my book.

 KING: Should he meet with the Levys?

 INGRAHAM: I think he should.

 No, no, no, no, no.
 It would be suicide for Condirt to meet with the family now.
 The mother would likely "go off" on Condirt, screaming "You killed her" while
 beating him about the head and chest area. That would be the next day's headline.
 As much trouble as he's in, he doesn't need more trouble.

 Also, have I mentioned what a zipper-happy slut Barbie Olson is?
 Every time she got a word in the conversation, she had to mention Clinton,
 as tho he was mixed up in this woman's disappearance.

 Barbie, just go to hell, would you?
 Ingraham was only half as bad, and when you contrast laura Ingraham with the Fries Twins,
 she comes off as a pretty well-reasoned Republican. Maybe Laura isa total nutsac on the radio,
 but she behaves herself when she's on TV, and that's asking a lot of a blonde Republican.

 In closing, the reason I brought this up was to compare the hysteria of nasty ass Sally Quinn
 and Chris the Screamer to this exchange right here:

 INGRAHAM:  If I didn't find Condit so repulsive right now, I would feel a little
                            sorry for him, because he probably had nothing to do with this.

 GERAGOS: There's nobody who believes he had anything to do with this (murder).

 That's what the sane people are saying.
 We all know Condit is a lying weasel and I say he's guilty of "hindering prosecution" but only
a sensationalistic whore like Quinn or the Screamer would accuse Condit of murder - so far.

 For more,   Click  Here  to read what Mac over at AMPOL does to this nasty ass "reporter."

 Excerpt:
Have you admitted here or anywhere else your own peccadilloes, your own hateful treatment of
other women and their families? Have you ever looked in the mirror and seen the horrid lines
and peaked skin that marks people who suck at the teat of evil to get there "rocks" off?
You are evasion personified -- self-immolating, self-important, a self-constructed shrew.

 ha ha

 Go Mac!