[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Kathy,
LOL....her contributions came from her husband's money. You're certainly
entitled to think that anything has been proven to you, but based on what
we have learned in the past few days I think that you'd have to admit
that Ms. Willey's credibility has certainly taken some major hits.
And did you ever hear CLINTON say that he never met her? In point of
fact, it was Bennett who made that statement and he never even said that
Clinton had not met her. He said the president did not recall meeting
her. Perhaps Bennett was mistaken? Is that not allowed? <BG>
Willey's story has now changed three times. Sue pointed out the signed
document where she said she never talked to anyone the day of her
husband's suicide. Mac pointed out that her story to the publisher was
different from her story on 60 Minutes. How many more changes do you
need?
My comment about he lack of job skills was based on a rather complete
history of Ms. Willey that was in Sunday's paper. And, in fact, Paula
Jones's attorneys are trying to establish the fact that Ms. Willey got a
good job from the Clinton folks in spite of her lack of job skills
because she was keeping quiet about his advances. Like I said, her money
came from hubby and no one says you need talent to volunteer to work for
a campaign. And she actually asked for an ambassadorship! Yikes!
Her motive for the interview was made clear by her own lawyer who alerted
the publisher to it and told him it would really hype interest in any
book she wrote.
LOL...and Clinton's popularity goes up! This whole thing is a big soap
opera and it's a real shame for those women who REALLY suffer sexual
harassment and abuse on the job. Simply believing every woman who makes
an accusation does not do women any good, IMO.
This certainly shows the Supreme Court committed a grievous error in
letting the Jones suit proceed while Clinton was in office.
Bill
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:23:42 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Bill what I believe is what I have seen proven to me, I have proven to
>me that Clinton lied about his meeting with her. He has since changed
>his story. I have not seen her lie. I'm waiting for someone to point
>out
>to me where she lied, I'm also waiting for someone to show me where
>she
>has changed her story so often, as I have seen people here say she
>has.
>I haven't seen that at all. Now I'm ready to back up what I believe
>with
>consistent news articles all saying the same thing she has said. And I
>can easily show where Clinton has not been consistent.
>
>Yes you can easily try to allege she was a no talent nothing, but Bill
>the facts don't back you up, beleive it or not most no talent nothings
>are not able to donate thousands of dollars to a campaign or donate a
>lot of volunteer time. Watch what you allege, especially when your
>allegations can be proven to be false quite easily.
>
>You have jumped on the bandwagon of people who are guessing at things
>and instead of geussing you have now decided to turn those guesses
>into
>facts. I am surprised. Since when did you decide her motive for this
>interview? She clearly stated her motive but that wasn't good enough
>for
>some people they had to come up with something to draw blood, so what
>do
>they say, oh yes! She is a women who is mad she wants to get Clinton
>for
>NOT getting her a job like she asked. But here is my problem he did do
>that, and she did do the job. So what's the deal here folks? Attack
>anyone you can and make up things and state them as fact even though
>you
>have nothing to back you up? Nope I don't buy that.
>
>So now the new line is she did this to write a tell all book, well
>folks
>guess what she already did the tell all it was on TV I saw it along
>with
>a lot of people, she gave her story away for free folks. Last time I
>heard 60 minutes doesn't pay for interviews.
>
>Whats the next line going to be? That he rejected her and she was so
>enraged that she made this up? It's very easy to sling mud, the
>problem
>is make sure your tossing it the right way and that you have the right
>to sling it.
>
>I guess I could follow along like some and look at all the gossip and
>BS
>that is circulating, there is a lot of it. Yet I think I'll still
>refuse
>to do that. I'm going to go with the known facts and let others wallow
>in the juicy stuff. And my last line is for both sides of this issue,
>Clinton and Willey, I don't want to hear the gossip or guessing on
>either side of the issue, I want the facts. So far the facts aren't
>looking good for the prez so his team is tossing in the BS and that
>really stinks IMHO.
>
>BTW do you think Clinton has had any coaching? Or is he a naive little
>child in this whole thing?
>William J. Foristal wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>>
>> HI Kathy,
>>
>> It seems to me that you make similar assumptions in your choice to
>> believe Willey. I thought she was the most credible accuser of
>Clinton so
>> far, but the recent information we have seen after her 60 Minutes
>> interview has really posed some questions with respect to her
>> credibility.
>>
>> It is just as easy to make assumptions that she was disappointed
>that
>> Clinton had not taken care of her better in the sense of getting her
>a
>> high paying job so she found a better way to make money by lying to
>hype
>> up a book she is writing.
>>
>> It seems that there are numerous people like Willey in both major
>parties
>> who have no real talents of their own but somehow latch on to the
>power
>> politicians in each party and try to get into lucrative positions as
>a
>> result of their working on campaigns.
>>
>> I would like to see these accusers subjected to hostile cross
>examination
>> in court before I really draw a conclusion about whether they are
>telling
>> the truth. It's very easy to construct body language and other
>> believable traits during a gentle and sympathetic interview on 60
>> Minutes. Especially if they have been coached.
>>
>> Bill
>--
>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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
