[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:57:36 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>The Clinton haters seem to be missing an important point here. If she
>>was really intent on helping Clinton cover up his guilt then all she
>has
>>to do is testify and lie about Clinton's involvement.
>
>But she can not do that, because she knows that the truth will
>eventually
>emerge, and then she will be back in jail for perjury, a much longer
>sentence than simple contempt. She needs to tell the truth period,
>then no
>perjury or contempt charges will follow. Unfortunately for you, two
>Bill's,
>the truth may just hurt a little.
>
>Ron
Hi Ron,
Gee, you and Terry need to get your stories together. Terry was telling
us that the penalty for perjury would be much less that what she has
already served for the contempt charge.
I suppose you haven't heard all of Terry's stories about how aggressive
and wily prosecutors can twist people around on the witness stand and
confuse them to the point of stating inconsistencies which can later be
cited as evidence of perjury.
Starr doesn't want the truth. He wants testimony that will incriminate
Clinton and he doesn't care how he gets it.
I'm not afraid of the truth, no matter which way it turns out. I've
always said if Clinton broke the law then he should resign or be
impeached. The problem is and always has been that the Clinton haters
want to assume the truth without evidence and this entire fiasco is being
driven by political motives.
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
