[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:27:11 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Hi Terry:
>>
>>Sounds like good old political talking to me. LOL
>>
>>Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if
>>Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about
>it.
>>
>>Sue
>
>OK, Sue, seriously. When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems
>farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on. When the
>elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have
>to
>show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity.
>It
>won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people.
>Best, Terry
Hi Terry,
Fortunately in our judicial system it is never required of anyone to
prove that they are innocent. It's up to the state or the feds to prove
that they are guilty.
So far I don't think Hillary has even been indicted.
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
