-Caveat Lector-
At 12:17 PM 1/15/99 -0600, Linda Minor wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
>Carlene M. Wojahn wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the only thing Clinton admitted
>to
>>> lying about the fact that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky?
>>
>>Ahhhhhhh.......but he hasn't admitted that..you see they didn't have sexual
>>relations...he wasn't having any with her, she was having relations with
>him.
>
>+++++++++++++++
>The point so many people seem to be missing is that this whole scandal
>started with a lawsuit brought by a woman whose credibility is severely in
>question, at a time when the law was not even clear whether a civil lawsuit
>could be brought against a sitting president.
The law was clear to everyone, especially Clinton and his counsel.
---Snip-----
>Suppose for a moment that she lied about what happened. Suppose also that
>the lawyers were acting on behalf of politically motivated individuals who
>hate Clinton for political reasons only--because his policies hurt their
>pocketbooks, for example.
Lawyers taking a matter to trial on behalf of politically motivated
plaintiff(s) - now that's something that you don't see every single day on
every docket in the country!!
Suppose these same people knew Monica's
>proclivities and Bill's weakness and set up a scenario for him to fall into,
>while at the same time pushing the Jones case through the court so that
>depositions could be taken. Then they monitored Monica's reports through
>agents Tripp and Goldberg, making sure any available evidence (like the
>dress) is preserved.
>
>I believe this scenario--given the connections between Ted and Barbara
>Olson, Kenneth Starr, the Rutherford Foundation and Richard Mellon
>Scaife--is much more credible than the "common sense" allegations Starr
>presented to Congress, without any real evidence, such as any small-town
>prosecutor in Texas would have to have in order to convict anybody for
>anything. If the real evidence he had, and the way he got it were revealed,
>and were subject to cross-examination in a real court, the judge would
>dismiss the case without presenting it to the jury.
>
>Linda
Assuming, arguendo, that your imaginary scenario is true, it proves nothing
other than Clinton is lacking in self-control and easily manipulated. The
rest is entertaining, but clearly irrelevant.
Barb
>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
