moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Danny Ferguson is the trooper and he is a target of the lawsuit for lying
> about the details. His story that he worked for Clinton in gathering phone
> numbers and procuring women has been substantiated. The story about Paula
> Jones is precisely what initiated the lawsuit. He was the source of the
> article in "The American Spectator." Not exactly a cogent argument, Mac.
Gee, I thought it was the other two troopers that were the source of the story.You
know...the one's being bankrolled by the GOPAC committee headed by
Clinton's arch enemy in Little Rock. I wonder why The American Spectator
is not named in the lawsuit or the author of the article.
>
>
> >> Jones was a government employee and Clinton was her boss. His denials all
> >> around have been farcical.
>
> >Maybe to you but not to others.
>
> Have it as you will. All the witnesses for Jones, all the witness for the
> President are lying. How the hell does that make sense? If it makes sense
> to you then there is little more to say.
I never said that.
>
>
> >> It is proven by his lies and his vicious attacks on the women and reporters.
>
> >Attacks on what women? What reporters?
>
> I printed excerpts from a long article discussing the "free-speech" hero,
> Sidney Blumenthal, in particular who made claims various prosecutors and
> reporters were homosexuals or involved in illicit relationships. The
> incredible attack machinery operating out of the White House has shown
> itself once again against Willey. It is really no secret. People just hide
> their eyes. If you don't have the article, if you want it, Mac, I will be
> glad to look it up and email it to you.
Let me get this straight...it's ok for the Right Wing crowd to sling mud but nota
supporter of the President! I believe there may be a damn good reason for
the WH to challange Ms. Willey.
>
>
> >> The attacks themselves by a highly sophisticated publicly-funded hit
> >>operation should shock people.
> >
> >He is not allowed the same rights as any other American.
>
> Not every other American has private investigators digging up dirt on
> reporters and blackmailing them over access to the White House. Not every
> American has been able to attack the personal lives of prosecutors. I
> didn't know there was such a right.
If they have the funds they can.
>
>
> >What about the Republican funded smear campaign against him?
>
> Tsk, tsk. The imaginary crap from Falwell has fallen flat for obvious
> reasons. If you want to simply call these wingnuts and religious fanatics
> Republicans, I suppose. But they simply don't have the platform of the
> President of the United States. Since James Carville toured the country
> calling Paula Jones trailer-park trash, people are often shocked to learn
> she never lived in a trailer park. How many people are intiamately familiar
> with Falwell's charges? I have only the vaguest concept of what they are.
It goes far beyond Falwell.
>
>
> Now would you like to discuss which smear campaign you are talking about?
> Jerry Brown's original charges about a certain land development in Arkansas?
> Is Jerry Brown a Republican?
I don't belive Clinton has been found to be guilty of anything relating toWhitewater. I
belive Jerry Brown has created his own party.
>
>
> >> The intimidation and evasion has been pervasive and wide-ranging.
>
> >Maybe so but it's working and so far there is no proof that he has done
> anything illegal.
>
> Yes there is. The evidence is overwhelming. The denials are equivalent to
> the denials by OJ's fans.
Overwhelming!! Where is it? I haven't seen it yet. Alot of allegations but nothing
hasbeen
turned in by Ken Starr or anyone else.
>
>
> >> Elizabeth Ward, a woman who told a friend about an encounter according to
> the >>friend, is busily occupied dodging a subpoena in Europe. Got any idea
> why?
>
> >Maybe she doesn't really have anything to say. Also it sounds alot like
> >hearsay.
>
> It is hearsay. I didn't know we were in court. Everything I am saying is
> hearsay.
I agree.
>
>
> >If Ken Starr can find a friend of Monica's in Japan I'm sure he could track
> her >down if her testimony was relevant.
>
> Uh, Mac, we were talking about Paula Jones' lawsuit. Paula Jones has been
> trying to serve a subpoena on the former Miss America for many months.
It's all the same Terry. The same witnessess that are being deposed forthe Jones suit
are
being brought in front of the grand jury.
>
>
> >> >From the very beginning Clinton has shown himself to be a liar. He told the
> >> nation in a tear-jerking appearance on "60 Minutes" with Hillary that he had
> >> done wrong but he never had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. It was a
> >> performance that put to shame Nixon's wonderful "Checkers" speech or the
> >> tearful confession of Jimmy Swaggart. Later Flowers was the "woman I never
> >> slept with."
>
> >Then got reelected!
>
> So? Nixon had a tremendous landslide. Better than Clinton's as I recall.
> Clinton has a much higher approval rating. If it was possible I believe he
would re-elected for a third term. Nixon didn't make out of his second.
>
>
>
> >> Even Jones' sister has confirmed the encounter Clinton had with Jones. She
> >> has toured the daytime sleaze shows telling about how Jones is just trying
> >> to make money and is used by Clintonites as a supposed refutation.
>
> >So she is only lying about part of the story!
>
> Probably. At least five other people confirm her story. Only Our Beloved
> President denies it. I have no real idea if Jones told her she was going to
> make money off the encounter, if she was excited by it. That you can judge
> yourself but you are denying the encounter. That is what I am talking about.
I never said that. I believe there may have been an encounter but itwas consensual.
Maybe
morally wrong but hardley sexual harassment.
>
>
> >> There are actually six witnesses to the aftermath of the event as well as
> some who
> >> saw were witnesses preceding the event. Clinton just can't seem to
> >> recollect any of this except he can remember he didn't do it.
>
> >But no witness to the event.
>
> There rarely are in such events. Does that mean they are not provable?
Pretty much so. It comes down to credibility and a perhaps a jury if itgets that far.
>
>
> >> The attacks on the women and Clinton's selective leaks and studied silences
> >> says it all.
>
> >I do believe in one's right to defend themselves.
>
> Do you believe in the right to threaten to name people as homosexuals? Do
> you believe that the White House should be in the business of trying to get
> unfriendly reporters fired?
All is fair in love and war. It's politics and it tends to get real ugly down inthe
trenches.
>
>
>
> >If their stories hold up youmay have a case.
>
> >> Oh, yeah. Jones has passed a lie detector test. Clinton would not lower
> >> himself, of course.
> >
> >Anyone can pass a lie detector.
>
> Hogwash. They are the most effective means known of showing lies. Police
> agencies and security agencies have great faith in them. Why would they do
> that?
I disagree. If they were so reliable they would be admissable.
...Mac
>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
