[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Mac,
I deleted much. We can go on arguing over whether a propaganda machine
blackmailing reporters, making libelous charges in secret against
prosecutors and anyone regarded as hostile, controlling access to the White
House to stifle hostile stories about presidential criminality is all just
normal operations and we should all be glad to be paying for it. I
politeley demur.
>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.
Danny Ferguson was the source of David Brock's description of Paula Jones.
When you quote Danny Ferguson, you quote David Brock's hatchet job.
>I wonder why The American Spectator is not named in the lawsuit or the
author >of the article.
Because they have attributed their source and are essentially immune in the
instance.
>> >> 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.
Oh? Then what are you saying? Clinton has denied everything. There was no
meeting. There was no sex. Or at least he can't remember.
I maintain that Jones was approached and propositioned. That Clinton, with
the phenomenol memory of most successful politicians, is unlikely to have
forgotten Jones. That Jones' version of events is shown by the
preponderance of witnesses to the events, even some that are hostile, and by
Clinton's unwillingness to address the issue instead using false and
contemptible attacks on his accuser.
What is it that you said?
>Let me get this straight...it's ok for the Right Wing crowd
>to sling mud but nota supporter of the President!
It is not alright for "the rightwing crowd" to pass around salacious
information which has no particular basis in truth and maybe deliberately
false any more than it is for the President to do so. It is particularly
nauseating when the President indulges in such sleazy operations because he
is supposed to at least have a modicum of respectability.
>I believe there may be a damn good reason for
>the WH to challange Ms. Willey.
Let's see what we know about Ms. Willey. She was in desperate straits. She
was a longtime supporter of the the President and Democratic volunteer. She
asked
for a fulltime job but never got one - she did get shorter term jobs. Her
financial condition remains quite desperate. Clinton at first couldn't
remember meeting her (that ol' memory problem again and then remembered with
crystal clear accuracy). Kathleen Willey resisted a subpoena from Paula
Jones for months and when the efforts collapsed told her story after being
deposed.
Now there is fantastic charge that Willey had some sort of diabolical scheme to
use this whole affair to make money off the story. Her partisanship has
been overruled completely by greed.
I think it is more believable that the man in the White House, who has
acknowledged problems with sex and has demonstrated his willingness and
ability to lie convincingly in the Gennifer Flowers case, received Kathleen
Willey in a time of desperation and sexually assaulted her as she said, as
has happened to others.
>> 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.
Blackmail is illegal. I don't dispute people get away with it.
>I don't belive Clinton has been found to be guilty of anything relating
>toWhitewater.
Al Capone was never convicted of any mob activities. Many people
nevertheless believe the evidence.
>I belive Jerry Brown has created his own party.
Jerry Brown was the Democratic governor of California, he was a candidate
for the Democratic nomination for President when he brought up Whitewater.
He comes from a Democratic family and has been a Democrat all his life. If
he has started a new party it is news to me. (A lot of things are.)
Are you now claiming Jerry Brown too is a member of the rightwing conspiracy?
>I believe there may have been an encounter but it was consensual.
And your evidence is?
>All is fair in love and war. It's politics and it tends to get real ugly
down >in the trenches.
Some people defended My Lai because bad things happen in war and the enemy
were bad people. I don't believe all is fair in love and war. I believe
there are levels of morality that all of us should measure ourselves against.
An amicus curiae brief on the validity of lie detectors presented to the
Supreme Court asking that a polygraph be allowed in a court martial can be
found at
http://truth.idbsu.edu/amicus/brief.html
The Supreme Court found for the use of the polygraph in the case.
The arguments against lie detectors are typically of the nature that jurors
will be too impressed by scientific findings, that they are not 100%
accurate (true, of course), that the basis for accuracy cannot be reliably
delineated, etc. Police and security agencies have great faith in them
because they are shown to work quite well.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
