Re: L&I Media Trial
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Uh Bill read what I said again, I said It's up to each person to decide, I myself feel Clinton is lying about some of this. You may think different. So I don't understand your statement what did you mean? William J. Foristal wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > HI Kathy, > > But didn't you decide that Clinton had lied? > > Bill > > On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:41:05 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >And according to what he said on Cochran last night he said that the > >reason he didn't take up their offer is he didn't realize the > >potential > >of her story, he now says he is more than ready to negotiate with her. > > > >So which is true of his statements? Who among us is the one to decide > >who lies and who doesn't? I always thought that was a decision each > >person made on their own and no one else had the right to dictate who > >is > >honest or not. -- 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
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bennet's first spin was that the President didn't remember the meeting > with Kathleen, the president said the opposite, he said he had a very > clear memory of the meeting. I haven't read Ms. Steele's depo as of yet, > I'm going to try to read those this weekend :) Not remembering a meeting or having a differant recollection doesn't always add uo to lying. > > > Concerning the amount of money asked, well isn't it common sense if you > owe money that you would want to make enough to pay off your debt? Don't > most people do that? I think so. I wonder why she didn't pay off the debt when the insurance checks started rolling infrom her husband's policy. According to the lender she went to great lengths to hide the money from the creditors. The policy was for a million. ...Mac > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bennet's first spin was that the President didn't remember the meeting with Kathleen, the president said the opposite, he said he had a very clear memory of the meeting. I haven't read Ms. Steele's depo as of yet, I'm going to try to read those this weekend :) Concerning the amount of money asked, well isn't it common sense if you owe money that you would want to make enough to pay off your debt? Don't most people do that? I think so. moonshine wrote: > Mornin' Kathy, >Considering this situation I think it does. It's the timing that troubles me. > Also the amount that she sought. She owes $272,000 and the last figure she > was seeking was $300,000. mm! >What lie did Bennet say? Did Ms.Steele lie in her avadavite? > ...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
Re: L&I Media Trial
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Kathy I may be wrong but didn't she, at first, deny that this had happened. I thought that this is partly where some of the problem has been. I may be wrong on this, so many have changed their stories that it is hard to keep track. But, if as I think happened, then she lied somewhere either at the beginning or at the interview with 60 minutes. I guess I feel like some do that we know Clinton has been lying or stretching/narrowing the boundaries on definitions and he is constantly being called on it. The same then should hold true for the women--all of them. And I am sorry but her demeanor did not send out a message of credibility to me, even before all the later stuff came out. I don't know of too many women who haven't been harassed if they have been in the workforce, military, or public service. And all the women I have talked to years later after the incidents[s] do not sit there like simpering idiots and sound like it is so difficult to discuss that they needed to be handled with "kid gloves." Also, she traveled in circles where her livelihood did not depend on getting and keeping a job with only one person or place of employment. There are many women who do not have choices in employment or bosses. She did--but continued to fawn on ole' Bill until it seems she saw greener pastures on the other side of the fence. jackief Kathy E wrote: > 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 n
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Kathy, But didn't you decide that Clinton had lied? Bill On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:41:05 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >And according to what he said on Cochran last night he said that the >reason he didn't take up their offer is he didn't realize the >potential >of her story, he now says he is more than ready to negotiate with her. > >So which is true of his statements? Who among us is the one to decide >who lies and who doesn't? I always thought that was a decision each >person made on their own and no one else had the right to dictate who >is >honest or not. > >DocCec wrote: >> Accordiing to the publisher to whom she offered the book, it >contained items >> quite unlike the ones she reported on the 60 Minutes show. Perhaps >it's not >> just the fact of writing a book that makes one doubt her >credibility, but the >> fact that the potential book does not correspond to her current >reports. >-- >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
Re: L&I Media Trial/ re Sue
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Dr. L.: LOL It sure can get hot and heavy can't it. :) Sue > > doncha love it doncha love it (breathe here) doncha love it doncha?!?!?! -- 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
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Kathy, LOLher 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? 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
Re: L&I Media Trial
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: And according to what he said on Cochran last night he said that the reason he didn't take up their offer is he didn't realize the potential of her story, he now says he is more than ready to negotiate with her. So which is true of his statements? Who among us is the one to decide who lies and who doesn't? I always thought that was a decision each person made on their own and no one else had the right to dictate who is honest or not. DocCec wrote: > Accordiing to the publisher to whom she offered the book, it contained items > quite unlike the ones she reported on the 60 Minutes show. Perhaps it's not > just the fact of writing a book that makes one doubt her credibility, but the > fact that the potential book does not correspond to her current reports. -- 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
Re: L&I Media Trial/ re Sue
"dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: doncha love it doncha love it (breathe here) doncha love it doncha?!?!?! - Sue Hartigan wrote: >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. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
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
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > > HI Mac, > > I agree. It was HER attorney who approached the publisher about a book > deal that would be an autobiography and WOULD INCLUDE HER ACCOUNT OF > CLINTON'S SEXUAL ADVANCES. Now, how much interest do you think there > would be in a book that did not include that or that told how Clinton > always behaved like a gentleman? Would the fact that she is in debt > motivate her to lie or exaggerate to hype the book? Her lawyer even made > the comment that the 60 Minutes appearance would help sell the book. > This is sufficient to destroy her credibility in many people's minds. > > Bill > Afternoon Bill, The part about the sexual advances was not part of the original proposal. that surfaced after they were told that there wasn't enough for more than a chapter. As the negotiations went on the story changed. IMO, Ms. Willey is damaged goods and the chance of her testifying are nill and the chances of any trial is slim. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:09:46 -0500 moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >Kathy E wrote: > >> Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Hi Mac :) >> >> I have been watching the news on the book deal and such, yet I am >stuck >> again does writing a book automatically cast doubt on a person? I >never >> thought it did and I can't help but wonder why it suddenly does now? >Do >> all authors have credibility problems? That's something new to me. >> > >Mornin' Kathy, > Considering this situation I think it does. It's the timing that >troubles me. >Also the amount that she sought. She owes $272,000 and the last figure >she >was seeking was $300,000. mm! > What lie did Bennet say? Did Ms.Steele lie in her avadavite? >...Mac HI Mac, I agree. It was HER attorney who approached the publisher about a book deal that would be an autobiography and WOULD INCLUDE HER ACCOUNT OF CLINTON'S SEXUAL ADVANCES. Now, how much interest do you think there would be in a book that did not include that or that told how Clinton always behaved like a gentleman? Would the fact that she is in debt motivate her to lie or exaggerate to hype the book? Her lawyer even made the comment that the 60 Minutes appearance would help sell the book. This is sufficient to destroy her credibility in many people's minds. 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
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, Incredible! I think Carville was right! Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:20:16 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >Paula did too. :) In fact there are pictures in there of her and her >boyfriend having sex. :( > >The woman who was having it out with Susan Carpenter, on Geraldo, >showed >the article, not the pictures though. :( > >Sue >> Hi Sue, >> >> The attorneys chose not to use them as witnesses. It wasn't a case >of >> their not being allowed to testify. And considering the verdict >they >> sure couldn't have hurt the case if they HAD testified. >> >> Did Paula have a spread in Penthouse? I thought that was Gennifer >> Flowers. >> >> Bill > >-- >May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And >may >all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. > >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
Re: L&I Media Trial
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-17 23:48:56 EST, you write: << I have been watching the news on the book deal and such, yet I am stuck again does writing a book automatically cast doubt on a person? I never thought it did and I can't help but wonder why it suddenly does now? Do all authors have credibility problems? That's something new to me. >> Accordiing to the publisher to whom she offered the book, it contained items quite unlike the ones she reported on the 60 Minutes show. Perhaps it's not just the fact of writing a book that makes one doubt her credibility, but the fact that the potential book does not correspond to her current reports. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-17 23:48:56 EST, you write: << I have been watching the news on the book deal and such, yet I am stuck again does writing a book automatically cast doubt on a person? I never thought it did and I can't help but wonder why it suddenly does now? Do all authors have credibility problems? That's something new to me. >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Mac :) > > I have been watching the news on the book deal and such, yet I am stuck > again does writing a book automatically cast doubt on a person? I never > thought it did and I can't help but wonder why it suddenly does now? Do > all authors have credibility problems? That's something new to me. > Mornin' Kathy, Considering this situation I think it does. It's the timing that troubles me. Also the amount that she sought. She owes $272,000 and the last figure she was seeking was $300,000. mm! What lie did Bennet say? Did Ms.Steele lie in her avadavite? ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Mac :) I have been watching the news on the book deal and such, yet I am stuck again does writing a book automatically cast doubt on a person? I never thought it did and I can't help but wonder why it suddenly does now? Do all authors have credibility problems? That's something new to me. Ms. Steele has said she lied about her knowledge, I don't know or find anything saying Kathleen lied yet. the only person I am convinced lied was Bennet, and Steele. The question now is if he did this why did she continue a friendship? Or write letters? Let me ask anyone think seriously there has been sexual harassment for years, are you seriously saying if someone is harassed they should immediately quit their job? In the real world that doesn't happen, people try to work through the problem and go on. Hopefully the one incident won't happen again. It looks like it didn't in this case. You don't forget it happened but you don't dwell on it either. You just move on. She did, he did. Again I did not see her as distraught in the interview, I saw her as surprised that someone she considered a friend doing something she wouldn't expect from someone in his position. You just don't expect the President of the US to act like a dog in heat. moonshine wrote: > > moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mornin' Kathy, > According to an avadavit signed by her friend Ms. Steele she did lie. So someone > is lying here. Ms. Willey, IMO, was following a script that apppears to be a little >to cozy with > the Paula Jones allegations. He distraught appearence was a little much considering >the length > of time since this alledged encounter. Her own letters have suggested a warm and >friendly > relationship with the president. She may have fought giving her depo but > she was more than willing to state her case to the public without being asked the >hard > questions. Then we have the financial concerns. She is deeply in dept and since the >president > didn't give her an ambassadorship her book deal should help with the bills. > Her story makes for great headlines but when put under the microscope it doesn't >hold up. >Her own actions and words have undermined her credibility and I don't think she > realized that those letters were kept. If she did, I think, we would've heard >something about > them during her interview. > ...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
Re: L&I Media Trial
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: Paula did too. :) In fact there are pictures in there of her and her boyfriend having sex. :( The woman who was having it out with Susan Carpenter, on Geraldo, showed the article, not the pictures though. :( Sue > Hi Sue, > > The attorneys chose not to use them as witnesses. It wasn't a case of > their not being allowed to testify. And considering the verdict they > sure couldn't have hurt the case if they HAD testified. > > Did Paula have a spread in Penthouse? I thought that was Gennifer > Flowers. > > Bill -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, The attorneys chose not to use them as witnesses. It wasn't a case of their not being allowed to testify. And considering the verdict they sure couldn't have hurt the case if they HAD testified. Did Paula have a spread in Penthouse? I thought that was Gennifer Flowers. Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:06:28 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >I know Ito didn't stop it, but they were still not allowed to testify. > >:( And to be honest I think that both Shivley and Resnick could have >helped. > >While we are getting at being publicized what about Paula's spread in >the Penthouse magazine? > >Sue >> HI Sue, >> >> I caught part of that Geraldo show and then got so sick of Susan >> Carpenter McMillan that I turned it off. I thought it was an old >show. >> >> Those people in the Simpson trial were not prevented from testifying >by >> Ito, but the attorneys decided not to call them because their >credibility >> could be seriously challenged because they sold their story. The >> implication is that people would be willing to lie to make their >story >> more marketable. IMO, the same applies to Willey. If she IS telling >the >> truth then I feel sorry for her. >> >> Bill > >-- >May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And >may >all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. > >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
Re: L&I Media Trial
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: I know Ito didn't stop it, but they were still not allowed to testify. :( And to be honest I think that both Shivley and Resnick could have helped. While we are getting at being publicized what about Paula's spread in the Penthouse magazine? Sue > HI Sue, > > I caught part of that Geraldo show and then got so sick of Susan > Carpenter McMillan that I turned it off. I thought it was an old show. > > Those people in the Simpson trial were not prevented from testifying by > Ito, but the attorneys decided not to call them because their credibility > could be seriously challenged because they sold their story. The > implication is that people would be willing to lie to make their story > more marketable. IMO, the same applies to Willey. If she IS telling the > truth then I feel sorry for her. > > Bill -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I caught part of that Geraldo show and then got so sick of Susan Carpenter McMillan that I turned it off. I thought it was an old show. Those people in the Simpson trial were not prevented from testifying by Ito, but the attorneys decided not to call them because their credibility could be seriously challenged because they sold their story. The implication is that people would be willing to lie to make their story more marketable. IMO, the same applies to Willey. If she IS telling the truth then I feel sorry for her. Bill On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:40:11 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >We have come a long way since the Simpson saga as far as book, >television, and movie deals go haven't we? They wouldn't allow Faye >Resnick, or Jill Snively to testify because one wrote a book and >another >went to Hard Copy. Then there was the knife salesmen who sold their >story to the Enquirer. Now it doesn't seem to matter if someone makes >a >buck off of the case or not, their testimony is still allowed. > >I agree that she seemed very believable on 60 Minutes. > >I saw Jone's sister and brother in law on Geraldo yesterday along with >Susan Carpenter whatever. I still don't go along with Jone's story, >and >really feel for what the two (Jones and Susan) of them have done to >Jone's mother and whole family over this. > >Sue >> 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 > >-- >May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And >may >all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. > >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
Re: L&I Media Trial
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: We have come a long way since the Simpson saga as far as book, television, and movie deals go haven't we? They wouldn't allow Faye Resnick, or Jill Snively to testify because one wrote a book and another went to Hard Copy. Then there was the knife salesmen who sold their story to the Enquirer. Now it doesn't seem to matter if someone makes a buck off of the case or not, their testimony is still allowed. I agree that she seemed very believable on 60 Minutes. I saw Jone's sister and brother in law on Geraldo yesterday along with Susan Carpenter whatever. I still don't go along with Jone's story, and really feel for what the two (Jones and Susan) of them have done to Jone's mother and whole family over this. Sue > 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 -- May the leprechauns be near you to spread luck along your way. And may all the Irish angels smile upon you this St. Patrick's Day. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[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 On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:16:50 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >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 matterfac
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mornin' Kathy, According to an avadavit signed by her friend Ms. Steele she did lie. So someone is lying here. Ms. Willey, IMO, was following a script that apppears to be a little to cozy with the Paula Jones allegations. He distraught appearence was a little much considering the length of time since this alledged encounter. Her own letters have suggested a warm and friendly relationship with the president. She may have fought giving her depo but she was more than willing to state her case to the public without being asked the hard questions. Then we have the financial concerns. She is deeply in dept and since the president didn't give her an ambassadorship her book deal should help with the bills. Her story makes for great headlines but when put under the microscope it doesn't hold up. Her own actions and words have undermined her credibility and I don't think she realized that those letters were kept. If she did, I think, we would've heard something about them during her interview. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
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 m
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff wrote: > "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Mac - concerning the underlying politics, do you or does anyone here > know anything about Web Hubbel (spelling?) being a common link between > Whitewater and these particular "witnesses?" Best to you, :) LDMF. Evenin' Dr., These particular witnesses are not associated with Whitewater. These witnesses are being used to try and show that Clinton is a sex maniac and has tried to suborn perjury and obstruct justice regarding these same sexual allegations. Ken Starr has failed to nail Clinton for anything having to do with Whitewater so, he has now married the two investagations together and from my view from the beach he is still failing. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >Afternoon Bill, > What cross-examination? I have serious doubts that she will ever be >called to testify. >As a matter of fact I don't believe there will ever be a trial in the >case of Jones v. >Clinton >nor in the Starr investigation, which is starting to become one and >the same. The Jones >camp has already made public their case and if you throw out the >inadmissable there is >virtually no case. I am of the firm opinion that they are having their >day in court right >now. >these accusations alone are causing great harm to the president and >that is the result >that they have been set out on getting from the beginning. What >started out as allegations >of >sexual harrassment have now been alluded to as sexual assualt. I have >faith in the >American >people and I just hope and pray they remember what all this was really >all about come >election time. >...Mac >" The answer lies in the world of Linda Tripp" HI Mac, Yeah, you're right. I doubt if we'll ever see a criminal trial involving the president. And the house won't impeach him either But if the judge doesn't throw out the Jones case and there is no settlement then it will have to go to trial and I would expect Jones's lawyer to call Willey. Then we would see a cross examination. 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
Re: L&I Media Trial
"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Mac - concerning the underlying politics, do you or does anyone here know anything about Web Hubbel (spelling?) being a common link between Whitewater and these particular "witnesses?" Best to you, :) LDMF. --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 > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Mac, > > Great post! I agree with you 100% I also wondered why, after being > dragged kicking and screaming into the Grand Jury, that Ms. Willey was so > willing to appear on 60 Minutes. The question is whether she has any > ulterior motives of her own, considering the huge debt she is under > because of he husband's illegal activities. I know she didn't get paid > for the interview, but perhaps she has been promised something by another > party. Who really knows at this point. And I'd still like to see how > all these accusers hold up under cross examination. > > Bill > Afternoon Bill, What cross-examination? I have serious doubts that she will ever be called to testify. As a matter of fact I don't believe there will ever be a trial in the case of Jones v. Clinton nor in the Starr investigation, which is starting to become one and the same. The Jones camp has already made public their case and if you throw out the inadmissable there is virtually no case. I am of the firm opinion that they are having their day in court right now. these accusations alone are causing great harm to the president and that is the result that they have been set out on getting from the beginning. What started out as allegations of sexual harrassment have now been alluded to as sexual assualt. I have faith in the American people and I just hope and pray they remember what all this was really all about come election time. ...Mac " The answer lies in the world of Linda Tripp" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Media Trial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Mac, Great post! I agree with you 100% I also wondered why, after being dragged kicking and screaming into the Grand Jury, that Ms. Willey was so willing to appear on 60 Minutes. The question is whether she has any ulterior motives of her own, considering the huge debt she is under because of he husband's illegal activities. I know she didn't get paid for the interview, but perhaps she has been promised something by another party. Who really knows at this point. And I'd still like to see how all these accusers hold up under cross examination. Bill On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:55:12 -0500 moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >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 > > >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
L&I Media Trial
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 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
