DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-03-20 18:29:27 EST, you write:
<< Evenin,
If Clinton's sexual past is fair game in showing a pattern of behavior in
the case
of Jones v. Clinton and Jones claims she now has a "sexual aversion" despite
having
sex anyway then why cannot her sexual history be used to refute her claim?
...Mac
>>
No good reason that I can see, Mac -- except of course that it's not
considered "gentlemanly" to do that. On the other hand, perhaps it's
unnecessary. I doubt even the grand jury in it's isolated ivory tower thinks
she's the Virgin Mary. She might have done better to skip this sexual
aversion stuff IMO.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
