Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-28 Thread Jackie Fellows

Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Doc

LOL  Maybe we could have a Satan and Sataness, like Yin and Yang.

jackief

DocCec wrote:

 DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 In a message dated 98-03-26 20:05:51 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  He managed to get it changed to 665 1/2

  to save himself and Nancy from the Great Satan.
  (I thought that was me lol)

  Spooky 

 Move over, Steve.  Didn't we establish that Satan is a woman?  Get off my
 throne, buddy!
 Cec

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective

I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"





Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-27 Thread hallinan

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Hi Terry:

Sounds like good old political talking to me.  LOL

Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if
Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about it.

Sue

OK, Sue, seriously.  When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems
farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on.  When the
elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to
show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity.  It
won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people.
Best, Terry 

"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law"  - The Devil's Dictionary 



Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-27 Thread William J. Foristal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:



On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:27:11 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Hi Terry:

Sounds like good old political talking to me.  LOL

Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if
Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about 
it.

Sue

OK, Sue, seriously.  When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems
farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on.  When the
elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have 
to
show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity.  
It
won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people.
Best, Terry 

Hi Terry,

Fortunately in our judicial system it is never required of anyone to
prove that they are innocent.  It's up to the state or the feds to prove
that they are guilty.

So far I don't think Hillary has even been indicted.

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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-27 Thread Sue Hartigan

Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Terry:

I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with
Whitewater.  What I do know is;

Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they
agreed to give loans that were not legal.

There was some land that someone owned and the investors were somehow
swindled.  I don't even know who owned the land or who did the
swindling.

Hillary had a small amount of money and managed to parlay that money
into a big amount.  

There were some papers that disappeared and suddenly were found on a
table in the white house by a maid or someone.  (That is amazing to me
BG) And no one seems to know how they got there.

That is my extent of knowledge of Whitewater.  

Was Hillary acting as the attorney for these people.  I know she
belonged to a group of lawyers.

What I was saying basically is that if a person says that they were not
privy to information, and have not discussed this information with
anyone then how can it be proven that they knew anything.  One can
"know" that they do, but to prove it seems impossible, to me anyway.
 
Like Reagan, everyone knew that the Iran/Contra thing was something that
he had to have known about.  If he didn't then he should have been
kicked out for stupidity.  But no one would say he knew, and he wouldn't
admit to knowing, so how do you prove it.

Am I making sense?

Sue
 OK, Sue, seriously.  When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems
 farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on.  When the
 elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should have to
 show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity.  It
 won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people.
 Best, Terry

-- 
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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-27 Thread William J. Foristal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:


HI Sue,

One correction here.  The Clintons lost money on their Whitewater
investments.

Bill


On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:55:47 -0800 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Terry:

I have to admit I know next to nothing about what happened with
Whitewater.  What I do know is;

Susan McDougal and her husband either owned or ran a bank and they
agreed to give loans that were not legal.

There was some land that someone owned and the investors were somehow
swindled.  I don't even know who owned the land or who did the
swindling.

Hillary had a small amount of money and managed to parlay that money
into a big amount.  

There were some papers that disappeared and suddenly were found on a
table in the white house by a maid or someone.  (That is amazing to me
BG) And no one seems to know how they got there.

That is my extent of knowledge of Whitewater.  

Was Hillary acting as the attorney for these people.  I know she
belonged to a group of lawyers.

What I was saying basically is that if a person says that they were 
not
privy to information, and have not discussed this information with
anyone then how can it be proven that they knew anything.  One can
"know" that they do, but to prove it seems impossible, to me anyway.
 
Like Reagan, everyone knew that the Iran/Contra thing was something 
that
he had to have known about.  If he didn't then he should have been
kicked out for stupidity.  But no one would say he knew, and he 
wouldn't
admit to knowing, so how do you prove it.

Am I making sense?

Sue
 OK, Sue, seriously.  When a lawyer takes part in a swindle it seems
 farfetched to claim they were ignorant of what was going on.  When 
the
 elements of a swindle or bribery are proven, a participant should 
have to
 show why they were ignorant just as a killer has to prove insanity.  
It
 won't work that way for Hillary but it does for ordinary people.
 Best, Terry

-- 
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


_
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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Sue - here's one of those paragraphs, snipped from your post, which
could keep a bunch of people busy a bunch of years diagramming all the
possible (or reasonably posited) states of mind depicted.  Did she
assist? If so, did she knowingly assist? If she lied, was it a conscious
lie or was she passing on a lie? If she concealed, etc. etc. etc.
Here come the experts on 'putative mental states' and 'psychology of
thought'!

Stretching the controversy a bit? Can't help it, I was bitten by the
*Law//Issues online forum bug*.  :) LDMF.

-Sue Hartigan wrote in pertpart: :-
   Prosecutors are trying to determine if Mrs. Clinton,
   while a private Arkansas attorney, assisted a series of
   fraudulent SL land transactions in the mid-1980s
   carried out by her business partner, the late James
   McDougal. They're also investigating whether she lied
   about her work under oath or tried to conceal documents
   in the Whitewater investigation that was begun during
   her husband's presidency.


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


:) Hi Terry -
How did WB know that he was naive? This sentence is false. Cheers!
:)LDMF

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:--

 Well now, Linda, when William F. Buckley was sued for fraud in the operation
 of a family business many years ago he testified that he was too naive to
 know what was going on.  The jury naturally bought his protestations of
 ignorance as any jury would Hillary's.  The answer though to all the deep
 philosophical questions is yes.  I refuse to believe Hillary is an idiot
 like her supporters believe.
 
 "Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 
 Hi Sue - here's one of those paragraphs, snipped from your post, which
 could keep a bunch of people busy a bunch of years diagramming all the
 possible (or reasonably posited) states of mind depicted.  Did she
 assist? If so, did she knowingly assist? If she lied, was it a conscious
 lie or was she passing on a lie? If she concealed, etc. etc. etc.
 Here come the experts on 'putative mental states' and 'psychology of
 thought'!
 
 Stretching the controversy a bit? Can't help it, I was bitten by the
 *Law//Issues online forum bug*.  :) LDMF.
 
 -Sue Hartigan wrote in pertpart: :-
Prosecutors are trying to determine if Mrs. Clinton,
while a private Arkansas attorney, assisted a series of
fraudulent SL land transactions in the mid-1980s
carried out by her business partner, the late James
McDougal. They're also investigating whether she lied
about her work under oath or tried to conceal documents
in the Whitewater investigation that was begun during
her husband's presidency.
 
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
 
 
 Best, Terry
 
 "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law"  - The Devil's Dictionary
 
 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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread Sue Hartigan

Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Dr. L.:

I think that Hillary Clinton is a very, very intelligent woman, and she
knows exactly what she is saying or not saying when it comes to
"knowing" something.

Reagan played the same game during Iran Contra.  I could never figure
out during that one how all the things that were going on around him
could possibly happen without him knowing what what going on.  But he
said he didn't.  :)  

I don't think she is lying anymore than Reagan was, they just aren't
telling the truth.  All of it anyway.

Sue
 
 Hi Sue - here's one of those paragraphs, snipped from your post, which
 could keep a bunch of people busy a bunch of years diagramming all the
 possible (or reasonably posited) states of mind depicted.  Did she
 assist? If so, did she knowingly assist? If she lied, was it a conscious
 lie or was she passing on a lie? If she concealed, etc. etc. etc.
 Here come the experts on 'putative mental states' and 'psychology of
 thought'!
 
 Stretching the controversy a bit? Can't help it, I was bitten by the
 *Law//Issues online forum bug*.  :) LDMF.

-- 
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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread Sue Hartigan

Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Hi Terry:

I don't think anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton is an idiot.  I really
don't.  And I am not one of her supporters.

But how do you prove a person knows or doesn't know something.  How can
anyone prove that Reagan knew what was going on during Iran/Contra. 
Common sense says that he did, but how can one prove it.

Sue
 
 Well now, Linda, when William F. Buckley was sued for fraud in the operation
 of a family business many years ago he testified that he was too naive to
 know what was going on.  The jury naturally bought his protestations of
 ignorance as any jury would Hillary's.  The answer though to all the deep
 philosophical questions is yes.  I refuse to believe Hillary is an idiot
 like her supporters believe.

-- 
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: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread hallinan

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How can anyone prove that Reagan knew what was going on during
Iran/Contra.  Common sense says that he did, but how can one proveit.

Someone will have to refresh my age-debilitated memory for a name but
Reagan's onetime Budget Director, the fellow Reagan took to the woodshed for
spilling the beans, wrote a fascinating book about Reagan.  He was worried
about the budget deficit and made an appointment with Reagan.  The
conversation went this way.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  I am worried about the budge deficit.

REAGAN:  I am too.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  Our defense expenditures are rising rapidly.

REAGAN:  We need a strong defense.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  And we are cutting taxes.

REAGAN:  That's good.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  And our deficit is getting worse.

REAGAN:  I am against deficits.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  But then you see our defense costs are going up.

REAGAN:  I have always been for a strong defense.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  And our tax revenues are declining.

REAGAN:  That's good.

BUDGET DIRECTOR:  But our budget deficit...

REAGAN:  I have always been against deficits.

Yeah, Sue, Reagan is believable when he says he didn't know what was going
on.  He never did.  The only time he really got upset was when he found the
number of his new address was 666. He managed to get it changed to 665 1/2
to save himself and Nancy from the Great Satan.
Best, Terry 

"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law"  - The Devil's Dictionary 



Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread Steve Wright

Steve Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Seriously though there isn't any way to prove one way or the other if
Hillary knew what was going on, unless she talked to someone about it.


We'll have to go find her hair dresser, they always know everything.


I have always had a soft spot for Regan, I guess I felt sorry for him
whenever Mrs. Thature got pissed, wow she was an amazing woman, Sometimes I
really miss her she was the only one that actually knew what she was talking
about and she commanded respect, especially in Europe, the people (looses
possible use of the word), we have in know couldn't organize a piss up in a
brewery. (sorry for the language).
We have no real statesmen in our government, just look at the treaty that
was
signed today France, Germany  Russia it was called a European pact and
Britain who is the European Parliaments Presidency had no part in it.

Steve (finished ranting).

P.S Any news on the Woodward case?
He managed to get it changed to 665 1/2
to save himself and Nancy from the Great Satan.
(I thought that was me lol)

Spooky




Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych

1998-03-26 Thread DocCec

DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


In a message dated 98-03-26 20:05:51 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 He managed to get it changed to 665 1/2

 to save himself and Nancy from the Great Satan.
 (I thought that was me lol)
 
 Spooky 

Move over, Steve.  Didn't we establish that Satan is a woman?  Get off my
throne, buddy!
Cec

Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues