moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hi Mac,
>
> He is probably an Evil Evidence Planter (EEP) who forced Monica Lewinsky to
> visit the White House dozens of times to tempt President Clinton to betray
> his marriage vows but we are glad to know he says he manfully resisted.
> Clinton could prove he is innocent if he wasn't forced to defend rights of
> the office of the presidency by claiming executive privilege. That is
> really a noble sacrifice that everyone has to admire.
It is after all his legal right to do so. One may disagree with his claim and find it
to
haveno merit but, if he believes it has merit then the claim is valid and should be
heard.
It's hard to make a decision on the basis of the claim when the particulars are
unknown.
My stance is based solely on his legal right to assert the privilage and let the courts
decide. An appeal of of Judge Holloway's decision has not been filed ( contrary to some
others beliefs) and I do feel it is a case that the Supreme court should revisit.
There is
alot more at stake than Clinton's current assertion.
I have yet to see any evidence regarding the 37 visits to the White House were to
see
Clinton. She afterall worked there and had many friends still employed there. Under
oath
they both have claimed there was no sexual relations between them. Everything else is
speculation.
>
>
> Many of the charges you claim to be facts are like those coming out of the
> Arkansas Project funded by the new bete-noir of clintonistas. They are
> simply unproven.
Many of the charges are facts. They are undisputed while others are disputed. I
believeI
left it up to the reader to form there own opinion. I have mine but I may be persuaded
otherwise as the case unfolds. I do believe both sides of the aisle have been
disingenuous
in the whole mess which IMO is a disservice to the people.
...Mac
>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
