Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
Read the post earlier about how Tripp's lawyer said she was set-up. Hmmmm. She just
happened
to have the goods in her purse. How much you want to bet that Starr wasn't aware of
this when
he gave her immunity. What I find interesting about this is if this is the case, and
the w.h.
was so guilty of obstructing justice and smearing their accusers then this should have
been
leaked to the media ages ago. Could that mean the w.h. were not engaged in those
tactics, I
wonder.
I'll have to figure out what you should be the expert witness so we both can rake in
the
millions <vbg>
jackief
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Jackie:
>
> Now the Pentagon is looking into Linda Tripp's background, saying
> something like, she didn't mention that she had been arrested once. And
> they released some of the transcripts today of Clintons, and the women.
>
> To top it off when the press asked Starr today what he thought about the
> stories of Tripp having been arrested he said that we should "remember
> that everyone has the obligation to remember to presume innocence until
> proven differently." Why wasn't that thought of when Clinton was the
> one on the hot seat, not that he still isn't.
>
> All I can ask at this point, is when did he have time to do his job. :)
>
> I like the idea of your lawsuit. I'll be your expert witness, ok? Just
> as good as any other expert witness, IMO. Just tell me what you want me
> to say. <BG>
>
> Sue
> >
> >
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
