Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No Terry
I believe she said she went to jail *rather* than to testify the way Starr wanted
her to. That is not the same as going to jail for not testifying to the truth.
And, if she tesifies as she says is the truth, he will cite her for perjury because
her story contradicts his star witness, Hale's, story. It all depends on who's
story you believe--Hale's or Susan's that leads you to believe which is lying and
committing perjury. I guess I prefer to believe someone that does not sell her soul
to get out of going to prison, rather than one who feels none of his crimes should
go to court as he figured he was immune to prosecution by testifying that the
Clintons were involved and knew it was a scam. It appears you left out a few words
when you related this--the words being "rather than testify the *way* Starr wanted,
not necessarily the truth. Maybe you could start with Pascal, rather than Kant : )
jackief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hi Jackie,
>
> If you can follow the logic of going to jail for not testifying to the truth
> because then you could go to jail for perjury (which few ever do) for
> telling the truth, I will have to take your word for it. I think it would
> be easier to understand Kant.
>
> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. She is serving time for her Whitewater conviction. Her trial for
> >> embezzlement is pending. And she is going to jail for contempt of court.
> >> Unless you think she is a masochist she is obviously hiding something - to
> >> with Clinton's involvement in Whitewater.
> >>
> >> >> Best, Terry
> >>
> >
> >Hi Terry
> >
> >I am a little puzzled here. I don't think that her refusal to testify
> necessarily
> >implies she is hiding something, nor that she is a masochist. Isn't that
> rather a
> >leap in logic?? Yes, in many cases people don't talk because they are hiding
> >something, but that is not always the case. It depends on the assumptions
> you are
> >making to draw your conclusions. Some people would think she was a staunch
> >defender of the "truth" and unwilling to submit to power. Others would say the
> >"truth" will set her free. Depends on your starting point doesn't it??
> Instead of
> >starting with the assumption that Clinton is guilty, try starting with the
> >assumption that he is innocent and that just possibly this is a political witch
> >hunt. I would think then that two different conclusions will be made.
> Susan may
> >be a "Joan of Arc" in disguise <VBG>.
> >
> >jackief
> >
> >> >--
> >> >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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Best, Terry
> >>
> >> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >In the sociology room the children learn
> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective
> >
> >I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
> >
> >
> >
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >
> >
> Best, Terry
>
> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
