[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
Well I think a good argument could be made that if someone's statements
under oath are all consistent, then what they say when not under oath
could be construed as idle gossip, boasting and making up tales.
But the immunity has nothing to do with what she said under oath, IMO.
It's about when she encouraged Tripp to lie under oath. If I was going
to challenge Lewinsky's statments under oath, that is where I would
attack it. If she is encouraging a friend to lie under oath then it's
obvious that she would do so herself.
Bill
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:35:27 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Bill:
>
>What I basically ment was that as far as lying under oath goes, it
>seems
>like in this case the fact that something is said under oath doesn't
>seem to make much difference. Monica swore under oath that she and
>Clinton didn't engage in sex. Now her lawyer is saying, "well, give
>her
>immunity and she will tell her story." So why should we believe
>anything she says under oath the second time around, when the first
>time
>around it was under oath also?
>
>As for Clinton lying under oath. I dunno, so far he hasn't changed
>his
>story and says he won't. He still says that he didn't engage in
>anything illicit. But that can be different in different eyes too.
>
>Even if he did lie and say that he hadn't had sex with her. Someone
>on
>Politically Incorrect brought out something that I hadn't thought of.
>What would people have to say about him if he had gotten up in front
>of
>the whole country and said, "Yes, Monica and I were screwing around in
>my office." That wouldn't have gone over too well either. Kissing
>and
>telling isn't exactly the kind of thing that any woman would look up
>to
>a man for doing. What he should have said was that it was no ones
>business what his sex life was, and that if they had any questions
>regarding running the country and his job, ask it, but leave his sex
>life where it belongs, private.
>
>It will never get to court, IMO. And Paula Jones won't win her
>lawsuit
>either. This thing has gotten completely out of hand. Clintons
>ratings
>are still high with the American people, and there is no way that they
>are going to impeach him, if for no other reason, for that reason
>alone.
>But that is just my opinion, and not one that anyone should take to
>the
>bank. :)
>
>Sue
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
