Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with
Whitewater. What I do know is;
Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they
agreed to give loans that were not legal.
There was some land that someone owned and the investors were somehow
swindled. I don't even know who owned the land or who did the
swindling.
Hillary had a small amount of money and managed to parlay that money
into a big amount.
There were some papers that disappeared and suddenly were found on a
table in the white house by a maid or someone. (That is amazing to me
<BG>) And no one seems to know how they got there.
That is my extent of knowledge of Whitewater.
Was Hillary acting as the attorney for these people. I know she
belonged to a group of lawyers.
What I was saying basically is that if a person says that they were not
privy to information, and have not discussed this information with
anyone then how can it be proven that they knew anything. One can
"know" that they do, but to prove it seems impossible, to me anyway.
Like Reagan, everyone knew that the Iran/Contra thing was something that
he had to have known about. If he didn't then he should have been
kicked out for stupidity. But no one would say he knew, and he wouldn't
admit to knowing, so how do you prove it.
Am I making sense?
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
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
