Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
No matter how one feels about Clinton himself, or his wife, if you
really look at the whole picture you can see where this country isn't
all that bad off, IMO. Now I know that congress has more to do with
that actually than the President, but still.
I can see really strange things that have happened in the WH that don't
make any sense. And I wonder about a lot of it. But so far, as far as
I know anyway, there has been nothing that anyone can actually pin on
Clinton. And there have been numerous grand jury investigations trying
to do just that.
I honestly feel that most of the American public is just tired of the
whole thing. They are sick of hearing Monica's name all over the place.
I know I am. :)
As for Starr, that man is scary. He seems to be able to do things that
no one else would ever even think of. I can't imagine any other lawyer
or whatever he is, calling in a persons private lawyer and questioning
them. And of course there are other things too.
I just wish that we could be privy to what is real information and what
is just dream information.
I honestly don't think anything will ever come of any of this. At least
not until Clinton is out of office. And then who will even care.
Sue
> Hi Jackie,
>
> One thing is for sure. You can take any fact and if it's pertinent to a
> political issue there will be spin doctors on both sides who will convert
> that fact into a fairy tale that supports their side of the issue.
>
> Yeah, McDougal had a lot of baggage, including lying about things during
> the course of the investigation. As with any other witness who lies, the
> question becomes what are they lying about and when are they telling the
> truth. Also he had a lot of emotional problems as well as his physical
> problems. And of course, he was going to receive benefits from Starr for
> his testimony.
>
> I think the biggest benefit of McDougal involves any documents he may
> have turned over to Starr as opposed to what he may have testified to.
>
> I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White
> House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick
> to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the
> truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased
> people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp.
>
> Bill
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
