[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Kathy,
That's what makes the statement so damaging to her. No one coerced her
to say that on the statement. It's what she wrote. Obviously, she was
mistaken about not meeting with Clinton, but the meaning of the statement
seems to be that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
Well I think a good argument could be made that if someone's statements
under oath are all consistent, then what they say when not under oath
could be construed as idle gossip, boasting and making up tales.
But the immunity has nothing
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Sue we already know that statement is false, her and Clinton both
admit they met that day. So now I'm left wondering why did they want her
to sign a statement saying she didn't meet with anyone? There is
something fishy going on I'm just not sure what it
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy:
LOL There are so many statements, and misstatements that I don't think
anyone knows what is going on. I don't know why she would sign an
affidavit like that either.
Last night on Politically Incorrect all four panelists (all politically
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
Again, the issue with Lewinsky is that they have her on tape encouraging
Tripp to lie under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case. That
has the potential for prosecution of a felony. So she wants full
immunity.
I also think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hello Doctor,
Where is Jeff Goldblum when we need him. G With our luck we would
train a shoulder fly and after a particularly interesting session between
Clinton and some woman the last thing that would happen is that Clinton
would swat and kill
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
What I basically ment was that as far as lying under oath goes, it seems
like in this case the fact that something is said under oath doesn't
seem to make much difference. Monica swore under oath that she and
Clinton didn't engage in sex. Now
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mornin' Kathy,
If Ms.Willey is so credible then why did she change her story for the
book deal? Her original proposal had nothing salacious or sexy about it.
When that version didn't sell her story took on another flavor. C'mon
now Kathy...you must admit
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy:
According to the lawyer who is handling the case for the clients her
husband stole the money from, Kathleen made a sworn statement which said
the on the day of her husband's death she went to the WH to do her daily
job, and talked to no one
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mac :)
You and I just have so much butting heads don't we :) :)
Afternoon Kathy,
As of today the publisher still says the story he heard on 60 mins. is
different than the one that was offered
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy:
According to the lawyer who is handling the case for the clients her
husband stole the money from, Kathleen made a sworn statement which said
the on the day of her husband's death
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
The publisher is also saying that the original story they came to him
with concerning the book deal is a different story from what she is now
telling.
Bill
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:09:47 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Sue
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Afternoon Sue,
She owes in the neighborhood of $272.000. just shy of the $300.000 advance
she sought for the book deal. Pretty cozy neighborhood.
...Mac
Hi Mac:
Thanks I left of a 0. That is quite a difference. BG
Sue
--
Two rules in life:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I have heard this, but the depo that says she didn't talk to anyone on
the day she went to the WH, the same day her husband was killed, was
*signed by her under oath*. That makes it more important, IMO, than
what her publisher is saying.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
I think it's obvious that Willey lied several times. So which story are
we supposed to believe?
Bill
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:28:36 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I have
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
This thing has gotten so intertwined in lies from all sides, I don't
know how anyone can believe anyone anymore. I know that the minute I
think I have it figured out someone comes up with something to refute
the person or story.
Maybe that is
"dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill - this goes way way way back, but I recall that in describing
the "omniscient" intelligence (knows all, sees all "objectively"), Henry
James posited a "shoulder fly" that just perches there and observes.
Such a creature would know a lie
17 matches
Mail list logo
