LI Starr-Scaife
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin', As reported last evening the fired lead investigator for the House committee headed by Dan Burton was the man responsible for the Arkansas Project..a group set up to defame Bill and Hillary Clinton. The following may provide a little insight into the investigation of the first couple. Richard Mellon Scaife (RMS) gave $2.4 million to American Spectator and they used at least $1.8 million to help create the Arkansas Project. They broke the state trooper allegation, a trooper later admitted he lied. RMS also funds the Independent Women's Forum, run by Barbara Olson, who funded legal assistance in the Paula Jones case by Kenneth Starr. Barbara Olson is the wife of Theodore Olson, a board member of American Spectator and is a former partner and close friend of Kenneth Starr. The American Spectator, through Parker Dozhier, provides cash and gratuities to David Hale before tesifying against President Clinton and Susan McDougal at the behest of Kenneth Starr. It was Hale's changed testimony that was the crucial evidence in the guilty finding against McDougal. RMS gave $1.1 million to Pepperdine Univ. to create the specific position offered to Kenneth Starr. RMS funds the Rutherford Institute which supports the Paula Jones case. Legal assistance in that case was offered by Starr. RMS funds the Fund for a Living American Government who gave $50 thousand to the Jones legal fund. RMS also funds the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation who support Paula Jones. Is this man Starr really an Independent Council or could there be something more sinister going on. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Starr-Scaife
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, He is probably an Evil Evidence Planter (EEP) who forced Monica Lewinsky to visit the White House dozens of times to tempt President Clinton to betray his marriage vows but we are glad to know he says he manfully resisted. Clinton could prove he is innocent if he wasn't forced to defend rights of the office of the presidency by claiming executive privilege. That is really a noble sacrifice that everyone has to admire. It is after all his legal right to do so. One may disagree with his claim and find it to haveno merit but, if he believes it has merit then the claim is valid and should be heard. It's hard to make a decision on the basis of the claim when the particulars are unknown. My stance is based solely on his legal right to assert the privilage and let the courts decide. An appeal of of Judge Holloway's decision has not been filed ( contrary to some others beliefs) and I do feel it is a case that the Supreme court should revisit. There is alot more at stake than Clinton's current assertion. I have yet to see any evidence regarding the 37 visits to the White House were to see Clinton. She afterall worked there and had many friends still employed there. Under oath they both have claimed there was no sexual relations between them. Everything else is speculation. Many of the charges you claim to be facts are like those coming out of the Arkansas Project funded by the new bete-noir of clintonistas. They are simply unproven. Many of the charges are facts. They are undisputed while others are disputed. I believeI left it up to the reader to form there own opinion. I have mine but I may be persuaded otherwise as the case unfolds. I do believe both sides of the aisle have been disingenuous in the whole mess which IMO is a disservice to the people. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Newt in New Hampshire
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon, Newt Gingrich has visited New Hampshire for the third time for some believe is a prelim towards his running for president. He was there to give a speach on policy to the New Hampshire legislators. When asked before his speach about the investigation of the president he declined comment saying he was there to speak on policy. Once he got to the podium it was a different story. He launched into an attack on Web Hubbell and the president. All of the Democrat legislators walked out. I would like to think he could put aside his own personal beliefs and give the fine people of New Hampshire from both sides of the aisle what they came for. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: HI Mac, Even the original story in the New York paper was basically correct in its reporting. Thousands of candidate compounds are screened every year to evaluate potential activity against cancer cells. 99% of these are quickly discarded due to safety or non-efficacy reasons. Among the few that pass the initial studies, a very small per cent of THOSE are considered as possible breakthroughs in the long battle against cancer. So the basic reality is that this IS a newsworthy story. Unfortunately, and this has happened many times in the past, the general public creates a tidal wave of interest and hope that usually exceeds the reality of the situation. Especially with the stock market prices of shares of the companies involved as well as with the unfortunate people who have cancer and are desperate for a cure before it is too late. I think it is appropriate to direct some criticism towards the FDA and how they handle the approval process for these promising drugs. I agree with that. The procees seems to move at a snails pace. But even the initial media coverage can not be considered a hoax, IMO. And even IF the initial story was misleading in its optimism, subsequent media coverage has put this breakthrough in proper perspective with respect to timing and probability of success. It's a shame that some people think they have to make outrageous claims simply to appear knowledgable about everything. I tried report the story as I heard it. If someone has knowledge of these drugs and their success rate then of course I welcome any info. I, myself, never heard of them nor seen them mentioned on list list prior to the story coming out. The fact remains that the public was informed the advances made with these drugs although the media hyped the story.As with any new finding's, or new to the public anyway, they should be treated with caution but I welcome the news and do not see it as a hoax nor puffing of research. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Little Rock Grand Jury
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, The real question is why release ANY of the tapes? It's not up to the public to indict anyone. It's not up to the public to convict anyone. Doesn't releasing the tapes poison any jury pool they could hope to draw from if there IS an indictment? I heard that a member of Burton's committee has resigned. Apparently he was the one who was pushing for the release of the tapes over the objections of several other committee members. Bill Afternoon Bill, It should have been Burton who resigned. This guy has been offered up as a sacrifice for a decision made by Burton. He admittedly went through the tapes and selected what would be released and how. From my perspective this was far more egregious than what clinton is being pursued for. WAKE UP PEOPLE There is danger in the air and you sit and act like you just don't care. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Starr Wars
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon, In January 1998 doctor's founfd two lumps on Susan McDougal's breast. She requested a 3 day medical furlough , quitely, as to not alarm her mother by having the news reach her via the media, to have them checked. Starr files a written motion opposing the furlough. February 1998 Susan makes a formal motion for the furlough. Starr agrees not to oppose the motion as long as Susan agrees not to talk to the media. The lumps are found to be benign. ...Just doing his job. Nice guy... ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it Tuesday. " It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think about eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics of the media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax may be implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron Afternoon,I guess the American Cancer Society are nothing but a bunch of fools. Your only telling the side of the story that supports Terry's position. It seems like the media hyped the story ( which I have already stated) but the fact remains that these drugs show promise and that is the issue. You have both taken a very low road in your vain attempt at trying to show myself and Bill up. It was not unexpected. I'll let the whole story stand on it's own merit. You, Ron Helm are such a hypocrite. You acknowledged the breakthrough in this area and now turn and dismiss for the sake of arguement. You, of all people should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace to your profession. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Ron's Opinion
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Evenin', Ron thinks my recent absence from the list was welcomed by all. I would hate to think that was true. But since Ron has elevated himself to be your spokesperson ( ie Susan Carpenter McMillian) it must be true. ;) So, I'll take my smart ass elsewhere where discussion can be free from censorship from a member who is a hypocrite and has a very misguided view of the world around him. I will miss the friendships I have formed here and am truely saddened by the recent turn of events. Anyone who finds themselves looking for a vacation spot feel free to come to the Cape and pull up a beach chair and join me in my precious little piece of heaven. Hell, I'll even toss a lobsta' in da pot for ya! The next sound you here will be the door hitting me on the ass as I head off into the good night. ...Mac " Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich with food and wine in abundance, an obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board. The hospitality was as cold as the ices." ...Henry David Thoreau Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leonard Booth wrote: Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Mac Don't do anything rash like leaving this list. Ron's opinion is worth Zero to me and others so stick around. I, for one enjoy your input and rational thinking. Len Mornin' Len, Thank you for your interest in this matter. I would love to be part of the list but I will not if I'm not wanted. Granted I have been quite personal with my post's to Terry but IMO, his own posting's have forced my hand. I can only tolerate lies and false statements for so long. I feel they are done intentionally to stir up the pot and to create heated discussion. If he wants to play fast and loose with the truth then I will call him on it and let my feeling's be known. If he wants to have a discussion based in fact or opinion and not his twisted version it would be better for all. If Ron wants to wear his toy sherriff's badge around his house that is fine also, just take it off when you come to mine. As you know I rarely hold back my thoughts or feelings and will not when push comes to shove. I will not tolerate lies, hypocrites, deception, or bigots. If one chooses to go down those roads there will be a toll and at times it can be steep. I enjoy the give and take but I feel that there should be some basis in truth or fact and not something concocted for the lack of knowledge on the subject. Ron, in a private post that should have been sent to the list for it dealt with the very issues at hand, has let it be known that the group doesn't want me around and has challenged my IQ level. I rise to that challenge. I have forgotten more than he will ever know. I will debate any issue he wishes and from what I've seen from his own words, he may know his chosen profession, but is in serious need of help in current events. He can continue to support only those who agree with him and damn the rest but I will continue to to offer my opinion's that are based on fact ( as I always have) and call 'em as I see them. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion/Mac
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. wrote: "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Mac: No! Cease, Desist, all that! Or to put it positively: Stay! Continue! Ron felt about the same and left the list, and now he's back. Heck, you are going to give us a big job fillin' ya in on all the excitement hereabouts. Hope to c u soon, :-) LDMF. Mornin', It's good to hear that someone else cares and is not part of Ron's posse. It is also refreshing to have the support from someone who speaks the truth and from what I gather understands my posting's for what they are. Gee, from the feedback I've received so far I'm beginning to question ron's motive in trying to police me and obviously without others consent put them in agreement with his on position. I wonder what that's all about? I wonder if he was lying when he told me that the members of the list felt my absense was welcomed. what king of person would purposely lie to suit theitr own agenda and wishes. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he cannot have an honest debate on the issues with me without resorting to lies, innuendo, and speculation and try and pass it off as the truth and facts that are irreputable. Nice try Ron! ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion/Mac
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yet another meaningful post from one of Mac's fans :-) Ron Mornin', Which is one more than you have! ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI RD
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spent over 20 years in RD. I think I know something about hype of technology. If Mac and Bill think I am lying again so be it. That was actually my job. Best, Terry Afternoon, Were you in RD for 20yrs. or a liar for 20 yrs.? ;) Seriously now.. what type of RD were you involved in? Also, what convinces you that this is a hoax and not what some of the leading RD people in the field are reporting it as...A breakthrough in research and a possible route towards a cure for cancer. You seem to blow them off as charlatans so easy when the facts that have come out clearly point to something that is truely a major step towards a long sought after solution. This is not some quack with a lab in her basement or some witch doctor from the rainforest. You may believe in your heart that this is a hoax but the facts are pointing in the opposite direction. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Often the same thing, Mac. Anybody involved in RD can tell you about the fights over funding. Only so many tax dollars to go around. I was a technical program manager for Rome Air Development Center, which was one of the main Air Force research laboratories. Our particular franchise was the development of digital cartographic and geodetic data for automated guidance systems. A spinoff to civilian use that people here are likely familiar with is the geopositioning satellite data. I worked with NavSat and Sins while serving in the Navy on board a nuclear sub. The hype vastly exaggerates a milestone that may indeed prove fruitful in the future. It far too early to talk about a cure. Responsible researchers have indeed noted that but the sensationalism of the press accounts drowns out the cautions. Exactly the point. The press made leaps that the researches didn't. The media put their spin on the story but in no way does that point towards a hoax. The finding's were reported and to me they show promise. Do you believe that the doctor has fudged the results to gain more funding? Mac, you are the one who is slinging around words like charlatan and stupid. The "major step" you see appears to me a small milestone on a decades-long process that may or may not prove successful in the long run. Stupid I'm not. I'm asking you a legitimate question. If you can't answer it then say so.I am not alone in looking at this as a major breakthrough. You may see it as a small step But the leaders in this field offer a different opinion. I don't think your qualifications nullify their opinion as easy as you believe. Again you are the one using words like quack and witch doctor for the researchers. I didn't. Hucksterism of serious research may not always be the best way to inform the public. Publication in scientific journals I can assure you will be considerably more circumspect. I was making an analogy. It's obvious that you cannot discuss this issue intelligently.you have made some pretty strong statements that you can't back up. you have done this many times before and my earlier post about you have just been proven by you yourself. How's the taste of shoe leather? You may believe in your heart that this is a hoax but the facts are pointing in the opposite direction. ...Mac Perhaps you will share with us your experience, knowledge or informed opinion that leads you to the conclusion that a breakthrough has been achieved. I recall many, e.g. interferon, monoclonal antibodies, cancer vaccines, applications of light and even heat treatment. Numerous research efforts are continuing on these and many others. From the reports I've seen the combination of the two drugs used together were successful. From what I remember this was not done before or something to that effect.I have personel knowledge of the research and use of interferon in clinical studies and the use of it in combating Hepatitis and MS. The success ratio is slowly improving in both these instances. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Ron's Opinion
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Viola Provenzano wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viola Provenzano) writes: Hi Mac, You are not only wanted, but would be sorely missed. Don't even think of leaving, but consider the source and go on your merry aay, Vi Evenin' Vi, I'm not going anywhere. The amount of support I've received has brightened my day. It appears someone has gone to the Dan Burton charm school. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI RD
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly the point. The press made leaps that the researches didn't. The media put their spin on the story but in no way does that point towards a hoax. So the reporters tell a different story than the results of a test would support and you see no problem? That is the problem. I see a problem and it's not in the reseach nor the media. As with many stories the mediatends to inject there own words to grab the audience. My problem with the media regarding this story was that they felt another lead story regarding Web Hubbell was more important. It wasn't until later in the day they gave the story the credit it deserved. The finding's were reported and to me they show promise. Promise of what? Curing mice? That's where it starts. The dump is littered with drugs that showed early promise of doing all sorts of things. And people, like me, are alive today due to others that the research led to wonderfuldiscoveries. Apparently we know now we can cause up to 98% remission of tumors of specially-bred mice with certain tumors. As far as I can see that is all we know for sure. 98% is quite high for lab results. Should they have done the testing on humans first? Do you believe that the doctor has fudged the results to gain more funding? There are cases of fraud in science but I have made no charges. It is you who know people are stupid and ignorant and lying. I have to have better evidence. Look in the mirror. You yourself are your own undoing. You have supplied all the evidence I need. As far as I know I answered every question posed to the best of my ability. At least you tried. The "leaders in this field?" Could you please tell me how you determined that all these "leaders in this field" have determined that there is a major breakthrough as shown by this set of test results? I don't have the information on "leaders in this field." I don't have a comprehensive survey of what they think and how they compare the status of these drugs to others in research. I'm going by the interviews done with the NCI and others. Well yes I can see that as long as you find I am stupid and ignorant and lying and whatever without knowing anything at all about me that you might not think much of anything I write. You have provided the proof. I know enough about you from your post's to see right through you. In real live people incidentally other drugs have caused complete remission of turmors. I don't doubt that but I'm sure they started the testing with the miceMac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Cancer Breakthrough
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' All, Over the weekend a major breaktrough in the cure for cancer was announced. It seems a combination of two new drugs injected into tumors in mice was successful in eliminating the tumors. This is a MAJOR breakthrough and the media, in all their wisdom, think that the Web Hubbell tapes are a more important lead story. What the HELL is going on!! Sam Donaldson said over the weekend it's the media's job to report a story and the public can decide it's importance to them. It seems to me that the media is deciding what is more importnt to them and their wallets than what constitutes important news. Should we allow the media to dictate what and when we should recieve news? It appears to me that the media thinks that the investigation of the President is the only news that deserves top billing. Something is terribly wrong here. I am of the opinion that a major medical breakthrough such as this is a bit more important than Web's tax problems. We are being forced feed what the media want's our diet to be and we as a people should reject it and demand more than scandal as our main meal. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI A Very Cruel Hoax
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh huh. If you have a mouse with cancer, Mac, you are in luck. If you are a human with cancer you better hold on for a while. One of the people that used the c-word was you, Mac. Evenin', Why don't you put it into the context that I did use it this morning? You have made it a bad habit of twisting people's statements to suit your own purpose and calling this story a hoax when you have no basis at all in the fact is incredibly ignorant on your part. This is not a hoax but the result of many years of hard work. Any new findings should be looked at cautiously and that is what is being done. For someone, who pretends to know what they are talking about , you sure are proving that you don't know jack about alot. If you want to play the devil's advocate that's fine but you should know a little something before you take position. Ignorance can be rectified but being an asshole is a lifetime position and you might as well get comfortable. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI A Very Cruel Hoax
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ignorance can be rectified but being an asshole is a lifetime position and you might as well get comfortable. ...Mac Just because Kathy and Ed seem to have disassociated themselves from this list does not mean that you, Mac, are free to degenerate into name-calling and personal attacks on others. Attack Terry's ideas, but the rest of us are not interested in your personal attacks. It just brings out your true colors. Ron Hey Ron, You too can kiss my true colorful ass! I once respected you but you made damn sure that was a mistake. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI HEADS UP: Tim Russert Destroys Dan Burton on Meet The Press
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody with delayed broadcast might be interested in the demolition of Burton by Tim Russert over the Hubbel tapes. Best, Terry Mornin' Terry, I watched that this morning. It proved to me that Burton is the "scumbag" and should be tossed from his chairmanship and perhaps from the the Senate itself. His actions clearly show he is out to get Clinton and the chance of any fair investigation of the charges are nill. I think it's time for the American people to take a hard look at his conduct and also of that of the Speaker of the House and his premature finding of guilty in the non-charges against Clinton. I am wondering if these actions by some of the most powerful politicians in the land could fall under the description of treason. They, along with some others, have clearly set out on a path of undermining the presidency of the U.S. and have by all accounts abandoned the Constitution and the rights that we all hold so dear. How can anyone expect to be treated justly and fairly under the law when some of our most powerful lawmakers are shreading the law and missleading the people in their own personel attack on the highest office in the land. Anything that Clinton may or may not have done doesn't come close to the misdeeds of Burton and Gingrich. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI HEADS UP: Tim Russert Destroys Dan Burton on Meet The Press
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A small correction, Mac. Burton is a representative. I stand corrected. Al D'Amato (God help us) is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That clown did a reasonably responsible job (so help me) as did Fred Thompson on campaign finance scandals. I beg to differ. Sen. Thompson was highly biased and misled the American people concerning the activities regarding Al Gore. Many of the allegations he hurled about were false and in the end it was proven that he knew they were false but ignored the facts andtried to slide a fast one by. He got caught and the also the failure of the Senate leadership to act on finance reform doomed the investigation. People fell asleep and everything was abandoned for lack of interest. There is still alot of interest in reform by the people but it's the politicians themselves that arn't interested. I notice even C-SPAN was attracted back by the sexy stuff coming out of Burton's committee. Burton is well-known as a kook. Republicans really know how to pick 'em. I agree. My crook is better than your crooks? What kind of philosophy is that? You have totally missed the point. Clinton is still under investigation and nothing hascome forward as a result of that. Gingrich has been found guilty. Gingrich has decided on his own that allegations alone are enough for him to declare Clinton guilty. This decision on his part is reckless and an abuse of his position. Sorry, Mac, Clinton is vastly more powerful than the sleazy Gingrich and kooky Burton, independent of the plain fact the most serious charges against Gingrich and Burton hardly measure up to those against Clinton I wouldn't say that. Gingrich has shut down the government already and has made this congress virtually uneffective. They have failed the American people by not working on issues but by going full force with an attack on Clinton the man. Clinton has chosen to put his duties as president in the forefront and has done his job well. That cannnot be said about his opposition in the House and Senate. Back to campaign financeif a partisan investigation were done into both parties I'm sure there would be some serious questions about donations to both sides. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Lawyer in Brawley case jailed
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HI Mac, Nice to see you back! The bunker is a bit muddy but still impenetrable. As long as the sump pump continues to work we are still in business. G Bill Evenin' Bill, A little leakage is nothing to worry about. My feet are dry and my spirit is soaring. Maybe it's time for an offensive maneuver. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very Funny Mac! LOL Y'all are giving TX a bad name, btw if you look Florida is the one that has been "chair" happy lately, not TX. Mornin' Kathy, Yeah but Texas is darn right next door! Could save the taxpayers a few pennies. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, I was wondering that myself. If I read the story correctly they are saying the kid never told anyone about this until after the murders. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Bill Incredible, now even little criminals are aware that the "abuse excuse" can work to your benefit in a defense! Ron Evenin' Ron, I think this is something that the lawyer cooked up. The father has been on t.v. everyday and said nothing about this. Supposedly the kid told some other relatives about this but they didn't inform the parents. Nice relatives! It wasn't until the lawyer "confirmed" it with the same caring family members that he felt he should inform the jury pool of the tragedy this poor child has suffered. I think they should move the venue to Texas. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Armey's Army
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: Hi Mac, Perhaps we can convince him to join the law list so that you and Jackie can tear HIM a new a**hole too. BG Bill Evenin' Bill, I'm not done with this one. ; ) ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI George Michael Arrested For 'Lewd Conduct' (http://www.yahoo.co.uk/headlines/9
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Steve: They still haven't said what he was doing, but they did say it was definately lewd. And that he was alone. It was also a misdomenor and all that he could get out of it is at the very most a thousand dollar fine, and/or a year in jail. Sue Evenin' Sue, Maybe an invite to the White house. ;) ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, You said, like others, you are "reserving judgment" and then you turn around and say "there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations." You have obviously bought the line about the famous vast rightwing conspiracy. Kind of like giving the lying bitches a fair trial before hanging them. Your objectivity is very dubious IMO. No I have come to my own opinion as to who has fueled the allegations. The facts support that opinion. Look into the history of the case and see where and how it began and follow the trail from there. It's a nasty political battle and many are being used aspawns to advance an agenda. You can dance all around it but it doesn't go away. Thank you. You proved my point better than I could. I believed I proved a point but it wasn't yours. I believe it started out as the hem of her skirt then she was wearing coulottes andthe hand went higher. Massage the truth? Is that like embelishing...adding to..etc. Your whole arguement and credibility just went down the toilet. Don't forget to jiggle the handle. and her complaint took on a life of its own. ? Her complaint has remained the same and quite consistent. Wrong again Terry. How about that little addition in the end about her adversion to sex?That didn't come out until very late...two kids late..and from an unqualified doctor. The last is not Jones' story. The story about Clinton's sexual assault has not changed. I don't blame you for trying to drag in specious additions. Even the word sexual assualt is a new addition. It wasn't me who dragged themin. So, again you are wrong. At least your consistent Doesn't work well on greasy surfaces surfaces. Wash your hands first. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People do not hesitate in the slightest to trash those they dislike repeating the grossest and flimsiest rumors as absolute truth while complaining loudly that the most obvious flaws of their heros are just unfounded rumors. It seems to me you are doing quite a bit of trash talking and repeating thegrossest and flimsiet rumors as the truth yourself. ...Mac Have a good day, Mac. Best, Terry Anyday above ground is a good day. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI George Michael Arrested For 'Lewd Conduct' (http://www.yahoo.co.uk/hea
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ronald Helm wrote: "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rumor has it that Monica was sighted leaving the area, just before George Michael was arrested :-) Ron Mornin' Ron, Naw that was Newt Gingrich in a wig and some sexy black nightie. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Armey's Army
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If one doesn't know that this is purely political has their head up the elephant's ass. Hi Mac, Of course it's political. I bet the Clinton bashers aren't going to assume that Armey was guilty of anything just because he's being accused of it. Bill Afternoon Bill, That was one of the points that I took from it also the fact that maybe he should keep his mouth shut before he puts his other foot in. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon Ron, I don't think he has much choice. He's still down from hurtin' jackie put on him. ...Mac Jackie said she didn't want to hear my opinion any more. I respected her wishes. It's a terrible loss alright but I can take it. I wonder whyMac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, It seems like there is more than meets the eye and when you look at as a whole there appears to be a machine fueling the allegations. This makes me suspicious of the accuser and of the story they have to sell/tell. Do you see your problem? No, enlighten me if you can. Clinton himself remains remarkably silent while his henchmen make the crudest imaginable attacks on those on the White House enemies list. Most likely on the advice of his lawyers and common sense. Yup. :-} It seems to me that Paula Jones kept silent also and had a plattoon of spokespersons and lawyers doing her attacking. Double standard, Terry! Paula Jones told her story, Mac. We are still waiting for Clinton's lawyers to let him use his - ummm - good sense. Who has a double standard? PJ has told many stories and her complaint took on a life of its own. There is onlyone truth and there is no need to change it. The president denied these allegations and IMO is listening to good advice. His adversaries have done him more good than harm. They have tried to use sex as a weapon and have failed in the eyes of the people. So far the double standard still lies with you. Nixon, after all this time, has been exposed as a crude amateur compared to the current occupant of the White House. I think Nixon was a pro and hardly crude. There were a lot expletives deleted as I recall. What are you referring to?...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ridiculous! Any CEO who did not have complete control of the company would be destroyed by doing what Clinton did. He would be out on his behind for much less. I didn't know that Clinton was found guilty of doing anything. A local politician was prosecuted for asking for sex with a college girl applying for a job. People are willing to forgive Clinton for far worse than most any businessman or smaller politician could survive. Don't you think maybe people are waiting for the investigation to be over beforethey are willing to forget or agree on prosecuting? Don't bet on it. The opinion that the dismissal was correct is far from unanimous and Clinton has a date with Starr in the near future. Clinton is likely to survive (if the Republicans' good fortune continues) but it is not yet assured. The summary judgment in Jones' case quite likely deprived Clinton of a favorable verdict and may have harmed his prospects. The effects of Clinton's failings will be felt for a very long time. People now actually accept what horrified them only a short time ago. More people accept the abuse of employees by a lecherous boss as just one of the vicissitudes of life. 67% approval rating and the republicans cannot get over it. They have wastedtaxpayers money and time by not dealing with the issues that they were put into office for. If anyone needs to be tossed from office I think the House leadership would be a great place to start. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Nixon beat his wife
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People do not hesitate in the slightest to trash those they dislike repeating the grossest and flimsiest rumors as absolute truth while complaining loudly that the most obvious flaws of their heros are just unfounded rumors. It seems to me you are doing quite a bit of trash talking and repeating thegrossest and flimsiet rumors as the truth yourself. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jackie Fellows wrote: Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi all Just on the news this morning. Said he was abused repetitively by a relative of the day care center he was in when 6 and/or 7. That's is really all I heard--imagine there will be more. jackief Mornin' jackie, I'm surprised it took this long for the defense to put this story out. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: Mitchell Johnson--victim of sexual abuse
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' jackie, I'm surprised it took this long for the defense to put this story out. ...Mac Hi Mac, I was wondering that myself. If I read the story correctly they are saying the kid never told anyone about this until after the murders. Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Bill Afternoon Bill, I don't think it's odd at all. It seems pretty standard to try and place blame elsewhere and put that blame into play before a jury is picked. This child knew enough about guns and the results of pulling the trigger. Even if he was molested it dosen't excuse his actions on that day. It was a premeditated strike and he, IMO, knew exactly what he was doing. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, She said the actions by Clinton were "boorish and offensive" but not "outrageous." I beg to differ. If you believe an employer does precisely what Clinton was accused of is not outrageous why not just say so, Mac. If they were true I would agree. As of right now there is no evidence that they are. The bar is in hers and your minds. Wrong again Terry. If you understand anything about law you know yourself that this statement of yours is asinine. There is a standard set and the evidence clearly shows that the claims made did not meet that standard. Your argument is shallow and not based infact nor logic. I thought that maybe by some of your previous post's that you had some understanding of law but I'm in serious doubt of that. If it was done at all Judge Wright made the decision based on the actions having taken place. It was up to a jury to find the truth of the situation in a case of outrageous conduct. That was not the sole reason of her decision. If you take her decision as a whole she wasright on the money. The question was whether it was an actionable tort. That is the criteria she says was not met. Do you agree or not, Mac? I agree it was not met. I also believe it didn't happen the way Jones said it did. Which law and facts? The question is a matter of judgment as to whether an employer can expose himself himself to an employee and tell her to kiss his penis. Judge Wright says in her opinion it is not sufficiently offensive to be brought before a jury by a plaintiff asking compensation. Do you agree? The facts that were submitted to her and the state law of Arkansas. I do agree with the judge. Certainly that's your privilege. But you haven't described what it is you disagree with me about except that you know I am prejudiced. Best, Terry I disagree with your whole analogy of this decision. I think your position on this isnot based on fact, law, nor logic. Therefore it must me based on your opinion only and that's fine. ...Mac " Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Biased Judge Forgives Clinton
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HI Mac, LOL...I just downloaded my juno account and found 8 notes. 7 were from Terry and Ron, 1 from you. I think they are getting a bit frantic over this turn of events that flies in the face of their opinions. The stretch is on to find some bias on Judge Wright's part or some reason that her ruling was in error. Their problem is that it's such a biiig stretch. LMAO Bill Afternoon Bill, Do you think that maybe they have cloned Susan Carpenter McMillian? ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Terry: You don't even have to go back that far. LBJ has a child out there who also has LBJ's name on his birth certificate. But of course this wasn't found out until long after he left office. In fact not until he left the earth. Sue Mornin' Sue, LBJ had a very strong liking for the ladies. Even Nixon had a mistress. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Background Required
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 tremen
Re: LI Background Required
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [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. Mornin' Terry, I never thought of it as an arguement. I was under the impression it was a discussion. I do believe that the propaganda machine has been running hard and fast on both sides of the aisle. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bennet's first spin was that the President didn't remember the meeting with Kathleen, the president said the opposite, he said he had a very clear memory of the meeting. I haven't read Ms. Steele's depo as of yet, I'm going to try to read those this weekend :) Not remembering a meeting or having a differant recollection doesn't always add uo to lying. Concerning the amount of money asked, well isn't it common sense if you owe money that you would want to make enough to pay off your debt? Don't most people do that? I think so. I wonder why she didn't pay off the debt when the insurance checks started rolling infrom her husband's policy. According to the lender she went to great lengths to hide the money from the creditors. The policy was for a million. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Mornin' Kathy, If there is something then I'm sure it will be used in one form or another against Clinton. That will a matter for the courts or congress. Alot will depend on the evidence and how it holds up under scrutiny. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. Afternoon Kathy, What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac: Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Afternoon Sue, I agree. Also I feel the media in general has also taken a big hit. What was once considered trash journalism has become the norm. I think the newspaper rack at the check-out line in the supermarkets will and should contain the countries leading newspapers and magazines It shouldn't be long before we start seeing color photos of mutants, aliens, and monkey boys on the front page of all the so called respectable publications. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, Don't you think that might depend partly on whether Starr's Republican friends can be surgically removed? Starr has been very solicitous of such concerns in the past. Afternoon Terry, From what I understand the House Judiciary Committee headed by Mr. Hyde is well respected by both sides of the aisle. The recent attempt by Newt to create a special select group to have a peak into the investigation by Starr was a blunder IMO, and his talk of impeachment is a tad premature. I'm starting to believe he wants to have impeachment hearings regardless of any evidence to stengthen his parties upcoming elections. I think he blinked and it didn't go unnoticed. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac: I don't know why it surprised me, but it did. The other day I was in the checkouts and there on the Star, Enquirer, and a few others were pictures and stories of Clinton. For some reason it just hit me wrong. The office of the Presidency should hold some kind of respect. But here it is in the same trash that holds the story of some three headed alien that came down and managed to mate with an alligator or something. I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is Quayle BG But do we really want someone in that office that is sooo perfect that they wouldn't be able to relate to the everyday guy. I don't think I would. Ther has to be a happy medium out there somewhere. Sue Afternoon Sue, It's the sexiness of the case that sells. Americans drool over it and the press relishes it. I think if we put anyone under the same microscope as Clinton there would be something there for someone to take issue with. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI British handling of the IRA prisoners
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve Wright wrote: Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But given the British handling of the IRA prisoners in the past I don't think they have much room to criticize other judicial systems. Bill Sorry to get a bit touchy Bill but there is a difference between a young kid and a cold blooded killer. After what happened in Oklahoma City I would have thought that you would have a bit more sympathy with not only British Solders, but the British people themselves. In Germany we had Snipers shooting our off duty troops at traffic lights, we had mortar attacks on barracks. In the U.K we have had indiscriminate bombing of shopping centers (Manchester) and the bombing of Canary Warf in London. These are not military targets I was not a military target but to the IRA it made no difference. How can you defend that? I understand people fighting for there beliefs but I have no time for them when the kill innocent civilians. I agree that the handling of prisoners by our country is brutal to say the least but there is good reason. I only hope that the attempts to bury the hatchet and find a peaceful solution come to a satisfactory conclusion. Steve Afternoon Steve, I do believe there has been the same type of military action by the Unionist and other British backed groups. I have sympathy for all folks involved in this war but in all fairness both sides have been guilty of unjust and retaliatory actions. Peace. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Sexual History/Herstory
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Background Required
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mac, In brief that Governor Clinton lured Jones to his hotel room and propositioned her. The evidence is that it was in a most lewd manner. A state tropper says it was Jones who initiated contact. Jones was a government employee and Clinton was her boss. His denials all around have been farcical. Maybe to you but not to others. It is proven by his lies and his vicious attacks on the women and reporters. Attacks on what women? What reporters? 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. What about the Republican funded smear campaign against him? 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. 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. 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. 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! 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! 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. 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. 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. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Willey Letters
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Damn Mac! I'm glad you don't serve as judge for all otherwise hell when I had a LCDR rub his groin against me and I told him if he did it again I would put him on report in which I would have, the way your speaking I should have left and never gone back. Mornin' Kathy, Did you send him letters saying you were his #1 fan? Did you heap praise upon praise on him? I'm convinced she concocted this scenerio for monetary gain. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Question for Kathy
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Kathy, If Ms.Willey is so credible then why did she change her story for the book deal? Her original proposal had nothing salacious or sexy about it. When that version didn't sell her story took on another flavor. C'mon now Kathy...you must admit that there is something amiss here. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Question for Kathy
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E wrote: Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac :) You and I just have so much butting heads don't we :) :) Afternoon Kathy, As of today the publisher still says the story he heard on 60 mins. is different than the one that was offered before. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Question for Kathy
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Kathy: According to the lawyer who is handling the case for the clients her husband stole the money from, Kathleen made a sworn statement which said the on the day of her husband's death she went to the WH to do her daily job, and talked to no one there that day. She is also still legally responsible for the money that her husband stole which is in the neighborhood of 30 thousand dollars. And the clients are actively trying to recover it. I got this off of Bryant Gumbles show last night, where the attorney appeared with the sworn statement of Kathleen's. :( Afternoon Sue, She owes in the neighborhood of $272.000. just shy of the $300.000 advance she sought for the book deal. Pretty cozy neighborhood. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Mac, I agree. It was HER attorney who approached the publisher about a book deal that would be an autobiography and WOULD INCLUDE HER ACCOUNT OF CLINTON'S SEXUAL ADVANCES. Now, how much interest do you think there would be in a book that did not include that or that told how Clinton always behaved like a gentleman? Would the fact that she is in debt motivate her to lie or exaggerate to hype the book? Her lawyer even made the comment that the 60 Minutes appearance would help sell the book. This is sufficient to destroy her credibility in many people's minds. Bill Afternoon Bill, The part about the sexual advances was not part of the original proposal. that surfaced after they were told that there wasn't enough for more than a chapter. As the negotiations went on the story changed. IMO, Ms. Willey is damaged goods and the chance of her testifying are nill and the chances of any trial is slim. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mornin' Kathy, According to an avadavit signed by her friend Ms. Steele she did lie. So someone is lying here. Ms. Willey, IMO, was following a script that apppears to be a little to cozy with the Paula Jones allegations. He distraught appearence was a little much considering the length of time since this alledged encounter. Her own letters have suggested a warm and friendly relationship with the president. She may have fought giving her depo but she was more than willing to state her case to the public without being asked the hard questions. Then we have the financial concerns. She is deeply in dept and since the president didn't give her an ambassadorship her book deal should help with the bills. Her story makes for great headlines but when put under the microscope it doesn't hold up. Her own actions and words have undermined her credibility and I don't think she realized that those letters were kept. If she did, I think, we would've heard something about them during her interview. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Clinton and another woman
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afternoon, According to sources, close to the investigation of Bill " The Swordsman" Clinton, there is a possibility that he has had ongoing sexual relationship with a woman by the name of "Hillary". There may be a child involved that has been shuffled off to the west coast to protect her privacy. The sources say they cannot verify them actually having sex but if the rumors are anywhere near the truth Ken Starr already has a supeana in hand and an offer of immunity for this "Hillary". A high ranking Republican has stated that,...".If this can be confirmed and her credibility holds up it could be the end of Clinton's presidency..". A White House spokesperson will neither confirm nor deny this rumor but agreed that if true there are going to be alot of angry woman around the East Wing. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Willey Tale
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Evenin', According to a an L.A. based publisher Ms. Willey's atty. has been discussing a book deal with him over the past 8 weeks. The story that was told to him was quite differant than the one Ms. Willey told on 60 mins. Their pitch to him was a story of friendship and support for the president. Much like her letters. The publisher told them they didn't have much more than a chapter. It appears that someone decided that they should take a little detour from the truth to bolster the story. The sound that your hearing is another key witness against the president crashing and burning. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI The Novelist
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Evenin', It appears that with the publisher Michael Viner's relevation this evening about Ms.Willey's book proposal that something very wrong and illegal has surfaced. By all accounts Willey's, story according to her letters and the book proposal, her relationship with the president has been a good one and she was proud to be associated with him and the party. It is a fact that her deceased husband has left her in financial ruins. She turned to Clinton for some help in getting some gainful employment. Things didn't work out quite the way she expected and her financial situation has not improved. About 8 weeks ago her lawyer contacted Mr. Viner, a well known publisher from L.A., about a book deal. Her lawyer was hoping for "Paula Barbiari kind of money" ie...millions. Her story was of little interest. the talks continued. Ken Starr and his investigators got a hold of her and she "reluctantly" went in front of the grand jury. After her appearance she chose to go on 60 Minutes and tell a different tale than what she told to her would be publisher. Mr. Viner fought with his conscience about going public with this change of the story. when he dropped this bombshell on tonights Internight show the response from a Clinton basher and a lawyer was a question of wether or not there was a publisher-client privilege. There isn't. From my seat on the beach Ms. Willey has concocted this fable in order to get the book deal she needed to get herself out of debt. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI InterNight - Jerralyn Merritt (again)
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alex Butler wrote: "Alex Butler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Following a contribution I made several months ago, I continue to watch MSNBC's InterNight and get ever increasingly annoyed with the performance of Jerralyn Merritt. Mornin' Alex, I echo your opinion. She has herself destroyed any credibility that she may have had herself. She is highly biased and at times a hypocrite. I hold her opinions on the same level as Susan Carpenter McMillian. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William J. Foristal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Mac, Great post! I agree with you 100% I also wondered why, after being dragged kicking and screaming into the Grand Jury, that Ms. Willey was so willing to appear on 60 Minutes. The question is whether she has any ulterior motives of her own, considering the huge debt she is under because of he husband's illegal activities. I know she didn't get paid for the interview, but perhaps she has been promised something by another party. Who really knows at this point. And I'd still like to see how all these accusers hold up under cross examination. Bill Afternoon Bill, What cross-examination? I have serious doubts that she will ever be called to testify. As a matter of fact I don't believe there will ever be a trial in the case of Jones v. Clinton nor in the Starr investigation, which is starting to become one and the same. The Jones camp has already made public their case and if you throw out the inadmissable there is virtually no case. I am of the firm opinion that they are having their day in court right now. these accusations alone are causing great harm to the president and that is the result that they have been set out on getting from the beginning. What started out as allegations of sexual harrassment have now been alluded to as sexual assualt. I have faith in the American people and I just hope and pray they remember what all this was really all about come election time. ...Mac " The answer lies in the world of Linda Tripp" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: LI Media Trial
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff wrote: "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac - concerning the underlying politics, do you or does anyone here know anything about Web Hubbel (spelling?) being a common link between Whitewater and these particular "witnesses?" Best to you, :) LDMF. Evenin' Dr., These particular witnesses are not associated with Whitewater. These witnesses are being used to try and show that Clinton is a sex maniac and has tried to suborn perjury and obstruct justice regarding these same sexual allegations. Ken Starr has failed to nail Clinton for anything having to do with Whitewater so, he has now married the two investagations together and from my view from the beach he is still failing. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
LI Willey Letters
moonshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Evenin', It didn't take long for Ms. Willey's credibility to get blown out of the water. I think if Ken Starr did his homework she never would've appeared on 60 mis. Sorry Ken, your little ruse to get this info out has backfired. If this was your smoking gun I think you just shot yourself in the foot. How many holes does that make now? IIMO, she will never make it to a court room to either testify or be charged with perjury. Today's revealing events again bolster my claim that this is nothing more than a political witch hunt and the slandering of the president is now becoming criminal. I'm beginning to think that the one person that should be investigated for obstruction of justice and subbornation of perjury is the dishonorable Ken Starr himself. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
