[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:38:21 -0500 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>
>William J. Foristal wrote:
>
>> Hi Jackie,
>>
>> As usual, your perception of issues transcends the bias and
>prejudice of
>> others. :) Clearly it seems that if McDougal was refusing to answer
>> questions in order to hide Clinton's guilt, then Clinton would have
>> issued a presidential pardon to her to take the heat off of her. He
>> could simply say that this woman is being persecuted as a political
>> prisoner and this was against all the principles that our judicial
>system
>> stands for. If he is not guilty, however, he does not need to take
>any
>> chances with public sentiment and opinion that might be turned
>against
>> him if he issues a pardon to McDougal.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Hi Bill
>
>And here I thought I was more difficult to understand than Kant : ).
>I just
>wonder how people can figure she is getting such a great payoff
>later--prison
>is no picnic, usually, for anyone. And I would imagine it is harder
>for
>someone that has been used to somewhat more in life than the average
>prisoner. Besides, by the time she gets out, I don't imagine Clinton
>would
>have the money for the big payoff as people seem to think. Oops, they
>just
>called Susan "Joan of Arc" on TV, they must be reading our posts
>(teehee).
>
>jackief
Hi Jackie,
Exactly! Using their own logic it is obvious that Susan McDougal's
refusal to testify is more indicative of Clinton's innocence than his
guilt.
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
