Re: LI Whitewater Grand Jury Sees Records/psych
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
[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
[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
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
[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
"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
"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
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
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
[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
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
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
