[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:43:10 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Bill
>
>Missed the tape with Greta. But isn't McDougal the witness that had a
>lot of
>baggage besides the "copping" of a plea to reduce his sentence?? It
>is
>ironic that his death did occur when it did--just goes to show you why
>some
>people believe so strongly in conspiracy theories and how there is
>always
>some truth that gets exaggerated. But, I didn't hear as much about
>this
>event, all I kept getting on tv was the discussion of the apology
>letter to
>the President by the journalist who broke the news about Paula Jones.
>Of
>course, he was paid off by the w.h. was a familar refrain.
>
>BTW, I just heard a quote yesterday that really pointed out the use of
>semantics to mask the reality. The person said that Clinton had lied
>when he
>told the public that the Republican Congress was trying to cut social
>security. He said that was not true, they were merely proposing a
>lowering
>of the trajectory. Hmm, what the h## is that I thought. Well, it
>just meant
>that the cost of living raises would not equal the raise in the cost
>of
>living, so someone asked him if that didn't mean a cut in monies as
>those on
>SS would receive less in "real" money that before. He said no "just a
>lowering in the trajectory." My head was spinning by that time.
>Seems more
>of that "looks like a duck" stuff. I think George Carlin was right
>when he
>talked about our language getting soft, IOW, it softened the harsh
>reality of
>what was really occurring. I think he called he referred to the poor
>as
>economically disadvantaged or something like that. George is one of
>the best
>social critics in the comedy field, I think.
>
>jackief
Hi Jackie,
One thing is for sure. You can take any fact and if it's pertinent to a
political issue there will be spin doctors on both sides who will convert
that fact into a fairy tale that supports their side of the issue.
Yeah, McDougal had a lot of baggage, including lying about things during
the course of the investigation. As with any other witness who lies, the
question becomes what are they lying about and when are they telling the
truth. Also he had a lot of emotional problems as well as his physical
problems. And of course, he was going to receive benefits from Starr for
his testimony.
I think the biggest benefit of McDougal involves any documents he may
have turned over to Starr as opposed to what he may have testified to.
I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White
House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick
to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the
truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased
people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp.
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
