[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Kathy,
IMO, the problem is that Starr has had plenty of other witnesses testify
that have been destroyed with respect to credibility after the fact. So
I think the public, rather than thinking something is happening, is
beginning to wonder how credible the next witness will be.
And trading testimony for leniency on a conviction is probably enough to
destroy the credibility of someone like Tucker. Just as trying to sell
her story for big bucks has destroyed Willey's credibility for many
people. The implication is that a made up story might bring more money
than the truth.
Bill
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:32:14 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking
>into
>the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the
>plea
>agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that
>there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded
>guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at
>trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their
>involvement
>in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are
>overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside
>gossip.
>
>Sue Hartigan wrote:
>> I think that if you read what I told Bill you would see that I
>basically
>> am saying the same thing. There were people in the Simpson trial
>that
>> were used because they had either written a book (Resnick) or been
>paid
>> by Hard Copy (Snively) or the Enquirer (the knife brothers). If
>their
>> testimony had been used perhaps something different would have come
>of
>> that circus.
>>
>> I was watching Eye to Eye just now, and I don't know anymore about
>> Kathleen Willey than what I saw on 60 Minutes, but it sure looks
>like a
>> deal where someone is trying hard to discredit her. I do have one
>> question, if everything that these people are saying is true,
>wouldn't
>> she have known that before she went on 60 Minutes. And knowing that
>> wouldn't she have thought about it quite a bit before she did.
>>
>> I don't know how in the world anyone is going to ever know who lied
>and
>> who didn't. Not in this mess.
>>
>> IMO Starr's investigation is going to go nowhere. All that is going
>to
>> come out of it is a big bill for the taxpayers. There are too many
>> people on both sides who are not telling the truth, and there is no
>way
>> that anyone can ever figure out what is what.
>>
>> That is unless an *eye witness* suddenly jumps out of the bushes.
>And
>> the way that this thing is going that just might happen.
>>
>> Have you heard anything about the actress from the Highlander show?
>She
>> supposedly had an affair with Clinton too, and now she is suppose to
>be
>> before the grand jury, and then there is the model from New York.
>Does
>> it ever end?
>--
>Kathy E
>"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and
>tomorrow
>isn't looking too good for you either"
>http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
