Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Kathy
Question: After listening to the commentators last night from both sides of
the fence, didn't Paula's lawyers open a can of worms by filing the new
charge of sexual dysfunction?? That makes her sexual life fair game,
doesn't it? I don't say it is right, merely that she opened the door.
I am not a Clintonite; I find him too slippery in a lot of ways, but I am
becoming truly baffled by this whole thing. It seems that it is alright for
the one side to dig into everything to establish a pattern and establish a
motive for the behavior, the lying by one party, etc; yet, on the other
hand, it is not alright for the other side to dig into everything to
establish a pattern, motive for behavior, lying, etc. We can bring in the
past sexual behavior of the accused in this case (even if the behavior is
different in many aspects), but not the past sexual behavior of the
accuser. We can use a lie he told about good ole' maryjane to establish a
pattern of lying, but we can't use the accuser's past lies to establish a
pattern of lying. We can immediately say that the truth is what the accuser
says it is; but all we want from the accused is the *truth, the whole truth*
as it is portrayed by the accuser, no other version will suffice. Thank
goodness we all believe so strongly in innocent until *proven* guilty, or
do we?? As one commentator remarked just because we don't like the accused
and just because he is President, isn't he entitled to the same avenues open
to the accuser and to the same (if not more so) benefit of the doubt we give
the accused?
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
> Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> You mean to tell me they're just NOW taking the gloves off? Hell I never
> realized they had them on. I mean look how many lives they have
> destroyed, lets be honest they are digging up dirt for one reason only,
> and that is to take away the attention from the allegations that are
> being charged, their thinking is if we can come up with something
> juicier than what the person is alleging then we will take the spotlight
> off of Bill and put it on so and so. What people don't seem to care
> about is the one thing the WH does is no matter who it is they will put
> out anything they can to destroy that person. I bet if Mother Teresa was
> alive and said something they would put out some dirt on her also,
> alleging she was a leader of this weird cult or something. Truth doesn't
> matter in this case anymore only who is willing to get dirtier than the
> other.
>
> Has it dawned on anyone that no matter how many people you have had sex
> with doesn't mean that you can't be sexually harassed? The WH thinking
> sounds like the old belief that a hooker couldn't be raped. Well they
> can be and people are convicted for it. Who Paula has slept with does
> not matter in this case. Who Bill slept with does not matter, what does
> matter is did he do as she alleges?
>
> Sue Hartigan wrote:
> >
> > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > This is really getting dirty now. :( Sue
> >
> > GLOVES OFF! CLINTON GOES INTO PAULA'S PAST SEX LIFE
> >
> > The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that the WASHINGTON POST will report in
> > Friday editions that President Clinton's legal defense team plans to
> > introduce in court Friday sealed evidence about Paula Jones' past sex
> --
> Kathy E
> "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
> isn't looking too good for you either"
> http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
>
> 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
