Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Mac :)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. This is why. First off you
have taken as truth something we don't know is truth at all. Your saying
she defiantly asked someone to lie, I don't think she did. If you
remember in the interview the one person caught in a lie was President
Clintons own attorney not Kathleen. Now her friend is now saying she
lied, yet when originally questioned she verified the story that
Kathleen told. So to be fair how can you believe she is lying or telling
the truth? When she claims when she was telling the truth she was really
lying? Kathleen answered those charges on the show and said she felt
someone had gotten to her friend. I think that is quite possible. I have
a problem believing a women who already says she lied. I would think
most people would.
I believed Kathleen, why? A lot of reasons, first I watched her body
language she didn't do anything most people do when lying, diverting her
eyes when answering, wringing of her hands or such, that is unconscious
actions people do when lying, she was straight forward. Also the fact
she had been a supporter of Clinton, including being a volunteer for his
campaign and donating money to his campaign. She went to him as a
friend, nothing else. She was shocked by what he did, as would anyone
be. She did NOT leak her story out to the highest bidder instead she was
clever enough to go to a respectable news show and let them tell her
story.
You then question why do it at all? Let me ask you this, everything is
being leaked to the press which is better to try to plug the leaks or to
come right out and say this is what happened nothing less nothing more.
And stop any rumors? I would do as she did.
I now wonder how long did Clinton and his PR team try to work on a
believable story? Their first story didn't work, where it was denied the
meeting even took place, that could easily be proved to be a lie, so now
they come up with the "bewildered and shocked". I'm tired of that line
of BS. And that is exactly what it is to me Mac a line of BS. The new
line now is he gave her a friendly hug and now he's even admitting he
might have kissed her on the forehead. So what is going to be the next
line? That he may have accidentally rubbed her breast? Come on!
You question why she said anything at all, remember Mac she was forced
to testify she didn't do it willingly. The next logical question is well
how would they know to even subpoena her? Well it was obvious to me,
right after it happened she talked to women around her telling them what
happened. She was amazed he did that. Women who have had this happen
usually will tell their friends about it, because they will try to
evaluate every single thing they did wondering if somehow they caused
it. That is what she did IMHO.
I never heard her say she was damaged by this, I did hear her say she
felt betrayed. I understand that, you don't expect a friend to do that.
The other thing you have stated confuses me, you question why are we
just hearing about this now? yet she herself said she planned on taking
this to the grave but she was tired of seeing people's lives destroyed
and all the lies being thrown around. Why do you question what she has
already clearly answered? And IMO her NOT talking before blows away your
she's lying about this to make money. If she wanted to make money she
could have, without any problem. She didn't do that Mac, she took the
higher ground and told what happened to her free of charge.
Tell me what credibility problem you had, I am clearly interested in
that. I saw no problem with her credibility matterfact she had a very
good record and that is the problem the WH is facing this women is
believable because she is relating something that happened to her by the
president, and they haven't been able to put a chink in her story.
That's called a PR nightmare. She is more credible than the president
IMO. Just look at consistency she is consistent the president is not,
his story has changed. If he has to change things that means he is
trying to hide something to me.
moonshine wrote:
>
> moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mornin' All,
> Before everyone jumps to the conclusion that Ms.Wiley is credible I think one
>should
> ask themselves "..why did she ask someone to lie about this incident.." If she was so
> damaged and upset about this why are just now hearing about it. Why is it that the
>case of
> Paula Jones, who's story seems to change as fast as the weather here in New England,
> has been coupled with the Whitewater investigation.
> IMO, both the Paula Jones case and the Monica story and now Ms. Wiley are about
> money. Monica has been offered 4 million for her story but is holding out for at
>least 5
> million. The two state troppers that brought forth the Paula Jones story to Mr.Brock
>are
> being bankrolled by a GOPAC group headed by one of Clinton's arch enemies. A right
>wing
> group is funding the millions of dollars for the Jones case. Jones herself is raising
> money for herself under the guise of a defense fund. Ms. Wiley is being portrayed as
>a
> reluctant witness but wrangles a deal with 60 Minutes to air her reluctant story.
> This is a case that is being tried right now in the media for the reason that in
>a
> court of law it is a loser. All of these women have very serious credibility
>problems and
> through the media they can put forth their stories without cross-examination. Why did
> Jones's atty's
> dump all the Lewinsky info in their brief to the judge in Little Rock when they know
> it has already been ruled inadmissable? Why did they give it to the media BEFORE they
> submitted it to the court? These are some of the many questions that you must ask
>and get
> answered before you can jump to any conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the
> president.
> This whole mess is a political game. The media has provided the stage and the
>money
> for the perfomers. The damage that this has already caused the office of the
>president
> is terminal and will affect anyone who seeks that office and will have lasting
>effects on
> the publics view of politics and the media. We the people are the one's who will
>suffer
> the most damage from this cheapening of the office of the president and the decline
>of
> true
> journalism.
> ...Mac
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
