[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Now you see the key point in this debate. The assumption that she refuses
to testify in order to cover up for Clinton is not reasonable.
Bill
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:22:25 -0700 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Bill:
>
>I never even thought of that, if he has evidence why does he even need
>her in the first place. Unless he needs to back up that evidence.
>But
>if that were the case then it would be her word against his.
>
>Sue
>> HI Sue,
>>
>> Yep, and the Clinton haters can't stand it. If Starr had evidence
>to
>> impeach McDougal's testimony then he wouldn't need her testimony,
>would
>> he? He wants to force her to lie and implicate Clinton because he
>has NO
>> evidence to do this on its own merits.
>>
>> Bill
>
>--
>Two rules in life:
>
>1. Don't tell people everything you know.
>2.
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
