[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:31:54 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Perjury charges seldom leads to jailing according to court observers
>when
>Mark Fuhrman pled guilty. It is pure idiocy to claim Susan McDougal
>is
>willing to spend years in jail for contempt of court to avoid the odd
>prospect of being tried and convicted of perjury for telling the
>truth.
>
>Oh yeah. It is also very difficult to get a perjury conviction.
>
>Clintonistas are not bound by the rules of logic or they wouldn't be
>clintonistas.
>Best, Terry
>
Using your self proclaimed logic then one would conclude that, if
McDougal was trying to cover up for Clinton, (which assumes he is guilty
of some crime), then all she has to do is testify and lie to cover up
that crime. This is logical according to your premise since people are
very rarely charged with perjury and even when they are, they are very
rarely convicted.
Following your logic further, this is solid evidence that Clinton is not
guilty of any crime in the Whitewater case and McDougal has other reasons
for not testifying before the Grand Jury.
It seems that Clinton haters are only bound by the rules of logic that
THEY define and that supports their ill founded and rush to judgment
theories. The hilarious thing is how they chant the innocent until
proven guilty mantra when it's one of THEIR people who is on the hot
seat. This destroys the one thing more important than logic. Their
credibility.
Best,
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
