Arkansas Murders, and stuff was Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue Sorry so far behind on posts. I will probably have to lurk more than post the next few weeks. It is not that I don't have much to say (that would never happen--BG), but am swamped--quarterly evaluation summary due; I have to submit the department budget by April 3rd; am rewriting the testbank for Allyn & Bacon, and have a teaching overload this quarter. Got tired, just writing about it . But will try to post a little if I can. Sorry to piggyback on this post to include some other stuff, but I am pressed for time today. So here goes. Forgive me I was so surprised when I saw that there is a "Minnesota Connection" to this case. The grandparents live a short distance from Austin and my collegue that I do research with and teach with was on local tv (don't know if it will appear nationally) was interviewed. He grew up with older boy's father, worked at the Faribault prison with the boy's mother, would not allow his children to play with the boy when they were neighbors, and was involved with the boy when Tom was the police chief in Grand Meadows. So he knows a lot of the history. He said the boy was always a problem and the parents could not control him, no matter what they did. I am really beginning to wonder about all of Washington. I wonder how much it cost us taxpayers to find out what books Monica is reading?? Now that is an important issue, I would think. There is a site on the Web I will try to get the address for Dr. L. on computer culture. It sounds like it is a new site. They also list a site of professionals you can link with that are discussing computer issues and that may be of interest to her. I will post right after going through the old e-mail after on polygraph testing in response to Terry. I tried to send an attached file, but it was too long. Sorry again Kathy. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > I think that you are right about that one. Even during his first > campaign he was running with the Hollywood celebs, and was sort of a > part of them. Even went on the Arsenio Hall show and played his horn. > > People do tend to forgive celebs anything. Even if they go to jail. > > Hillary standing by him certainly didn't hurt at all. > > Another thing that has been brought up is the fact that people are > uneasy about getting into his private sexual life. I think that might > have a lot to do with it too. I have thought about the fact that if > they can get into his, what is stopping them from getting into any one > of ours. Although mine would certainly be boring. > > Sue -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: I think that you are right about that one. Even during his first campaign he was running with the Hollywood celebs, and was sort of a part of them. Even went on the Arsenio Hall show and played his horn. People do tend to forgive celebs anything. Even if they go to jail. Hillary standing by him certainly didn't hurt at all. Another thing that has been brought up is the fact that people are uneasy about getting into his private sexual life. I think that might have a lot to do with it too. I have thought about the fact that if they can get into his, what is stopping them from getting into any one of ours. Although mine would certainly be boring. Sue > > Hi Sue > > I think the commentators have point out an important reason why. Clinton has been >put in the same category as a > celebrity and we don't expect as much in morality from celebrities, they suggested. >The other thing they mentioned that > Hillary has helped him tremendously by staunching defending him. They felt that >many then felt if she could forgive him, > why not the rest of us if he had done those things. Something to think about I >would think. > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I think the commentators have point out an important reason why. Clinton has been put in the same category as a celebrity and we don't expect as much in morality from celebrities, they suggested. The other thing they mentioned that Hillary has helped him tremendously by staunching defending him. They felt that many then felt if she could forgive him, why not the rest of us if he had done those things. Something to think about I would think. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > But you know what...right now it seems that it is the women who are > behind Clinton. I bet if the same situation was going on only it was > Hillary in Clintons position, everyone of these same women would be > yelling to have her ousted. You think? > > Sue > > Hi Sue > > > > You bring up a good point about the reversal if it were Hillary. The reaction >might be even more 'down and dirty,' > > though > > > > jackief > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: But you know what...right now it seems that it is the women who are behind Clinton. I bet if the same situation was going on only it was Hillary in Clintons position, everyone of these same women would be yelling to have her ousted. You think? Sue > Hi Sue > > You bring up a good point about the reversal if it were Hillary. The reaction might >be even more 'down and dirty,' > though > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue You bring up a good point about the reversal if it were Hillary. The reaction might be even more 'down and dirty,' though jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > I don't know really if it is different times or not. My daughter > handles it pretty much the same way I did. > > I think that it really depends on the age of the woman involved. The > first time it happened to me I was scared. The second time it really > wasn't any big deal, and a simple no thanks seemed to handle it. I > wasn't thinking at the time that the guy was my boss, or that he could > help or hurt me in the work place, just that I didn't want to get > involved with him or anyone else. He was married and so was I. > > The third guy was a creep, and I let him know so. :) > > I wonder how this whole thing with Clinton would have turned out if it > was Hillary that was doing what Clinton is accused of and these were men > who wanted to get further up in the WH. I really do. > > Sue > > Hi Sue > > > > You know it may be the different times we grew up in that makes the reaction to >this sort of behavior so > > different. I guess when I went to work, dealing with this in a direct manner was >just part of the territory. > > You either dealth with it yourself or it would go on; simple as that. I must say >though, you were nicer about > > it than I was. > > > > jackief > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: I don't know really if it is different times or not. My daughter handles it pretty much the same way I did. I think that it really depends on the age of the woman involved. The first time it happened to me I was scared. The second time it really wasn't any big deal, and a simple no thanks seemed to handle it. I wasn't thinking at the time that the guy was my boss, or that he could help or hurt me in the work place, just that I didn't want to get involved with him or anyone else. He was married and so was I. The third guy was a creep, and I let him know so. :) I wonder how this whole thing with Clinton would have turned out if it was Hillary that was doing what Clinton is accused of and these were men who wanted to get further up in the WH. I really do. Sue > Hi Sue > > You know it may be the different times we grew up in that makes the reaction to this >sort of behavior so > different. I guess when I went to work, dealing with this in a direct manner was >just part of the territory. > You either dealth with it yourself or it would go on; simple as that. I must say >though, you were nicer about > it than I was. > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 00:27:16 EST, you write: << I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got along fine, and never really had any problems. Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. >> (I've snipped bits above and below the quoted piece) I once had a boss (years ago when I was cute, blonde and young) who decided, after he hired me, that some extra-curricular activity went with the job. I just said no -- sort of in the no, thanks mode but a bit more definite than that. He grumbled a bit but after a few tries he stopped. I learned later that he had told his colleagues that I was the first secretary he ever had who said no to him, and that he rather liked me for it. At any rate, he bought the champagne for my wedding breakfast. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue You know it may be the different times we grew up in that makes the reaction to this sort of behavior so different. I guess when I went to work, dealing with this in a direct manner was just part of the territory. You either dealth with it yourself or it would go on; simple as that. I must say though, you were nicer about it than I was. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > I was thinking back about my experiences with this sort of thing the > other day, and can remember the first time it happened to me. I was > about 20 or so and one of the engineers at the hospital came on to me. > I had heard stories about him being married and coming on to women at > the hospital, but didn't really pay any attention. Anyway one night > when I was working the grave yard shift the phone rang and it was him > asking if I wanted to go out after work for a drink and a few other > things. :( I didn't really know what to say or do. After hee-hawing > around for a few minutes I managed to say something like my dad was > picking me up after work or something like that. The next day I told my > supervisor, and she did something about it, never knew what, but this > guy was put on notice to leave the women alone. He avoided me after > that. Not that it was that hard, as I was avoiding him too. And there > were never any more rumors about him. > > I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said > no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got > along fine, and never really had any problems. > > Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a > simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. > > Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in > order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. Unfortunately > for him, I didn't need the money that bad, and I let him know that his > wife would love to know what the job he offered entailed. Don't know > what ever happened to him, but needless to say I didn't go to work for > him. He did call the office one day for an appointment, but never > showed up when he found out I worked there. Hope he wasn't too > sick. LOL > > Sue > > Hi Sue > > > > I guess the pollers didn't ask any independents then or even someone who has no >professed party > > affliation. Geez, now I can't have an opinion of my own that isn't influenced by >my political leanings, > > excuse me all to heck. > > > > Had my students do a little off-the-cuff exercises. Asked them to tell me what >they would do if they had > > to meet with a person they had heard was a womanizer. How would they handle it?? >My 18 year old males > > and females had more moxy than Ms Willey. I guess that is why I didn't find it so >credible in the first > > place. I guess I agree with Doc in this respect. > > > > IMO, once again, we see the idea of the woman who should have all the rights, but >bear little > > responsibility for the consequences that occur when she takes unnecessary risks. >Yes, all these women had > > the right to expect not to be harassed, but knowing the reputation of Clinton if >all the stories can be > > believed, didn't they also have the responsibility to cut down their risks of >being harassed? Just a > > thought. > > > > jackief > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: I was thinking back about my experiences with this sort of thing the other day, and can remember the first time it happened to me. I was about 20 or so and one of the engineers at the hospital came on to me. I had heard stories about him being married and coming on to women at the hospital, but didn't really pay any attention. Anyway one night when I was working the grave yard shift the phone rang and it was him asking if I wanted to go out after work for a drink and a few other things. :( I didn't really know what to say or do. After hee-hawing around for a few minutes I managed to say something like my dad was picking me up after work or something like that. The next day I told my supervisor, and she did something about it, never knew what, but this guy was put on notice to leave the women alone. He avoided me after that. Not that it was that hard, as I was avoiding him too. And there were never any more rumors about him. I had a supervisor do the same thing a few years later. But I just said no thanks and after that there were no further problems. We still got along fine, and never really had any problems. Can't really say that I have had that many problems with it. Usually a simple no was enough to end the problem, permanently. Did have one guy who offered me a part time job let it be known that in order to get the job, he expected a little entertainment. Unfortunately for him, I didn't need the money that bad, and I let him know that his wife would love to know what the job he offered entailed. Don't know what ever happened to him, but needless to say I didn't go to work for him. He did call the office one day for an appointment, but never showed up when he found out I worked there. Hope he wasn't too sick. LOL Sue > Hi Sue > > I guess the pollers didn't ask any independents then or even someone who has no >professed party > affliation. Geez, now I can't have an opinion of my own that isn't influenced by my >political leanings, > excuse me all to heck. > > Had my students do a little off-the-cuff exercises. Asked them to tell me what they >would do if they had > to meet with a person they had heard was a womanizer. How would they handle it?? >My 18 year old males > and females had more moxy than Ms Willey. I guess that is why I didn't find it so >credible in the first > place. I guess I agree with Doc in this respect. > > IMO, once again, we see the idea of the woman who should have all the rights, but >bear little > responsibility for the consequences that occur when she takes unnecessary risks. >Yes, all these women had > the right to expect not to be harassed, but knowing the reputation of Clinton if all >the stories can be > believed, didn't they also have the responsibility to cut down their risks of being >harassed? Just a > thought. > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I guess the pollers didn't ask any independents then or even someone who has no professed party affliation. Geez, now I can't have an opinion of my own that isn't influenced by my political leanings, excuse me all to heck. Had my students do a little off-the-cuff exercises. Asked them to tell me what they would do if they had to meet with a person they had heard was a womanizer. How would they handle it?? My 18 year old males and females had more moxy than Ms Willey. I guess that is why I didn't find it so credible in the first place. I guess I agree with Doc in this respect. IMO, once again, we see the idea of the woman who should have all the rights, but bear little responsibility for the consequences that occur when she takes unnecessary risks. Yes, all these women had the right to expect not to be harassed, but knowing the reputation of Clinton if all the stories can be believed, didn't they also have the responsibility to cut down their risks of being harassed? Just a thought. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > I really found her very credible. She just seems like she was telling > the truth. > > But now that the letters and the book deal has come out, I dunno, > again. > I keep going back to the fact that Starr has been trying all these years > to get something on the President, and so far he has been unable to. > This time though there is no doubt that either she is lying or the > President is lying. Let's see if she gets brought up on charges of > perjury. > > The latest poll taken say that the majority of the men in the country > thought that she was telling the truth, whereas the majority of the > women thought otherwise. > > But someone tonight explained that as being that the majority of the men > are Republicans whereas the majority of the women are Democrats. > > Sue > > > > > Hi Sue > > > > I don't know who leaked it finally, but I would imagine someone at the Pentagon >after the digging > > started. Somehow I wonder if Tripp doesn't have a direct hotline to someone or >something--like you > > say, she is always there in the background. > > > > I watched 60 Minutes too, as did Ed. Ed found her very creditable, but I was a >little cynical. I > > kept wavering back and forth as she talked. I can see ole Bill (C) doing the >number with Jones and > > Lewinsky, but somehow I would think he was a little smarter than to try it with >one of his friend's > > wife out of the clear blue sky. I am not saying that she invited this if it >occurred, but common > > sense tells me most people don't sh## in their own backyards, so to speak. It >seemed in some > > instances though that she was trying to close up some of the arguments that the >defense could > > suggest in the Lewinsky affair. One thing I caught (or thought I heard)--it >wasn't in the Oval > > office, but his study, right?? Little detail, I know, but those little details >are sometimes > > important. Another thing that bothered me somewhat is the naive, hesitant little >girl that was on > > 60 Minutes (my, my, such cynicism this morning). This is no 21 year old intern >and this was someone > > who did not want the story public. If someone had made my story public, I would >not be this > > hesitant little woman--I would be angry that a friend had made a pass and a friend >had made it > > public and drew me into this mess. But, I am not Willey. > > > > I have a tough time with Bennett sometimes--he is a good example of the good ole' >boy network and > > their ideas about women. Remember his remark about Jones? And, sometimes I feel >he is about to > > make another wonderful statement like he did then. > > > > So I am still waiting--but I still think the money could be spent in better places >and I am > > wondering more about the deal where a private citizen cannot bring up ethics >charges on a > > Congressperson, only another Congressperson is allowed to do that. Hmm. > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: I really found her very credible. She just seems like she was telling the truth. But now that the letters and the book deal has come out, I dunno, again. I keep going back to the fact that Starr has been trying all these years to get something on the President, and so far he has been unable to. This time though there is no doubt that either she is lying or the President is lying. Let's see if she gets brought up on charges of perjury. The latest poll taken say that the majority of the men in the country thought that she was telling the truth, whereas the majority of the women thought otherwise. But someone tonight explained that as being that the majority of the men are Republicans whereas the majority of the women are Democrats. Sue > > Hi Sue > > I don't know who leaked it finally, but I would imagine someone at the Pentagon >after the digging > started. Somehow I wonder if Tripp doesn't have a direct hotline to someone or >something--like you > say, she is always there in the background. > > I watched 60 Minutes too, as did Ed. Ed found her very creditable, but I was a >little cynical. I > kept wavering back and forth as she talked. I can see ole Bill (C) doing the number >with Jones and > Lewinsky, but somehow I would think he was a little smarter than to try it with one >of his friend's > wife out of the clear blue sky. I am not saying that she invited this if it >occurred, but common > sense tells me most people don't sh## in their own backyards, so to speak. It >seemed in some > instances though that she was trying to close up some of the arguments that the >defense could > suggest in the Lewinsky affair. One thing I caught (or thought I heard)--it wasn't >in the Oval > office, but his study, right?? Little detail, I know, but those little details are >sometimes > important. Another thing that bothered me somewhat is the naive, hesitant little >girl that was on > 60 Minutes (my, my, such cynicism this morning). This is no 21 year old intern and >this was someone > who did not want the story public. If someone had made my story public, I would not >be this > hesitant little woman--I would be angry that a friend had made a pass and a friend >had made it > public and drew me into this mess. But, I am not Willey. > > I have a tough time with Bennett sometimes--he is a good example of the good ole' >boy network and > their ideas about women. Remember his remark about Jones? And, sometimes I feel he >is about to > make another wonderful statement like he did then. > > So I am still waiting--but I still think the money could be spent in better places >and I am > wondering more about the deal where a private citizen cannot bring up ethics charges >on a > Congressperson, only another Congressperson is allowed to do that. Hmm. -- 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I don't know who leaked it finally, but I would imagine someone at the Pentagon after the digging started. Somehow I wonder if Tripp doesn't have a direct hotline to someone or something--like you say, she is always there in the background. I watched 60 Minutes too, as did Ed. Ed found her very creditable, but I was a little cynical. I kept wavering back and forth as she talked. I can see ole Bill (C) doing the number with Jones and Lewinsky, but somehow I would think he was a little smarter than to try it with one of his friend's wife out of the clear blue sky. I am not saying that she invited this if it occurred, but common sense tells me most people don't sh## in their own backyards, so to speak. It seemed in some instances though that she was trying to close up some of the arguments that the defense could suggest in the Lewinsky affair. One thing I caught (or thought I heard)--it wasn't in the Oval office, but his study, right?? Little detail, I know, but those little details are sometimes important. Another thing that bothered me somewhat is the naive, hesitant little girl that was on 60 Minutes (my, my, such cynicism this morning). This is no 21 year old intern and this was someone who did not want the story public. If someone had made my story public, I would not be this hesitant little woman--I would be angry that a friend had made a pass and a friend had made it public and drew me into this mess. But, I am not Willey. I have a tough time with Bennett sometimes--he is a good example of the good ole' boy network and their ideas about women. Remember his remark about Jones? And, sometimes I feel he is about to make another wonderful statement like he did then. So I am still waiting--but I still think the money could be spent in better places and I am wondering more about the deal where a private citizen cannot bring up ethics charges on a Congressperson, only another Congressperson is allowed to do that. Hmm. jackief jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > Hey you might just have hit on something there.Who did leak it > finally do you know? > > I saw the Katherine Willey interview tonight on 60 Minutes. And she did > come across as being very creditable. But then the Presidents lawyer > talked for a few minutes, and his explanation sounded good too. The > part about her being very upset and couldn't find her husband, etc. ) > Her husband committed suicide while she was there talking to the > President that day.) But she did sound very creditable... > > Linda Trapp..er I mean Tripp was there then too. That woman sure knows > where to be and when to be there doesn't she. > > Sue > > > Hi Sue > > > > Read the post earlier about how Tripp's lawyer said she was set-up. H. She >just happened > > to have the goods in her purse. How much you want to bet that Starr wasn't aware >of this when > > he gave her immunity. What I find interesting about this is if this is the case, >and the w.h. > > was so guilty of obstructing justice and smearing their accusers then this should >have been > > leaked to the media ages ago. Could that mean the w.h. were not engaged in those >tactics, I > > wonder. > > > > I'll have to figure out what you should be the expert witness so we both can rake >in the > > millions > > > > jackief > > 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: Hey you might just have hit on something there.Who did leak it finally do you know? I saw the Katherine Willey interview tonight on 60 Minutes. And she did come across as being very creditable. But then the Presidents lawyer talked for a few minutes, and his explanation sounded good too. The part about her being very upset and couldn't find her husband, etc. ) Her husband committed suicide while she was there talking to the President that day.) But she did sound very creditable... Linda Trapp..er I mean Tripp was there then too. That woman sure knows where to be and when to be there doesn't she. Sue > Hi Sue > > Read the post earlier about how Tripp's lawyer said she was set-up. H. She >just happened > to have the goods in her purse. How much you want to bet that Starr wasn't aware of >this when > he gave her immunity. What I find interesting about this is if this is the case, >and the w.h. > was so guilty of obstructing justice and smearing their accusers then this should >have been > leaked to the media ages ago. Could that mean the w.h. were not engaged in those >tactics, I > wonder. > > I'll have to figure out what you should be the expert witness so we both can rake in >the > millions > > jackief Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue Read the post earlier about how Tripp's lawyer said she was set-up. H. She just happened to have the goods in her purse. How much you want to bet that Starr wasn't aware of this when he gave her immunity. What I find interesting about this is if this is the case, and the w.h. was so guilty of obstructing justice and smearing their accusers then this should have been leaked to the media ages ago. Could that mean the w.h. were not engaged in those tactics, I wonder. I'll have to figure out what you should be the expert witness so we both can rake in the millions jackief jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > Now the Pentagon is looking into Linda Tripp's background, saying > something like, she didn't mention that she had been arrested once. And > they released some of the transcripts today of Clintons, and the women. > > To top it off when the press asked Starr today what he thought about the > stories of Tripp having been arrested he said that we should "remember > that everyone has the obligation to remember to presume innocence until > proven differently." Why wasn't that thought of when Clinton was the > one on the hot seat, not that he still isn't. > > All I can ask at this point, is when did he have time to do his job. :) > > I like the idea of your lawsuit. I'll be your expert witness, ok? Just > as good as any other expert witness, IMO. Just tell me what you want me > to say. > > Sue > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: Now the Pentagon is looking into Linda Tripp's background, saying something like, she didn't mention that she had been arrested once. And they released some of the transcripts today of Clintons, and the women. To top it off when the press asked Starr today what he thought about the stories of Tripp having been arrested he said that we should "remember that everyone has the obligation to remember to presume innocence until proven differently." Why wasn't that thought of when Clinton was the one on the hot seat, not that he still isn't. Our front paper had a line up today of the women involved in this, and there were six of them, with a note saying that there were others that weren't photographed. All I can ask at this point, is when did he have time to do his job. :) I like the idea of your lawsuit. I'll be your expert witness, ok? Just as good as any other expert witness, IMO. Just tell me what you want me to say. Sue > > Hi Sue > > I heard the same about the Willey woman being the big problem for the w.h. But, >again, > why wait till now?? Didn't the job she alledgedly got because of Clinton quite what >she > thought it would be?? Let's look at the major actors so far: Tripp, the motherly >woman > who draws sexually harassed women to her like a moth to a flame; Paula, who seems >to be > pouting because she didn't receive flowers and is so emotionally distraught--but >doesn't > forget to smile for the cameras at all times; Monica, who admits being a pathological > liar; now Willey whose deposition is pretty vague except for remembering one thing > clearly; and Clinton who says he is vague about all of it. What a circus. > > Maybe I should sue Clinton maintaining that I am suffering from great emotional >stress > because he didn't include me in his overtures to women and my self-esteem as a woman >has > suffered ever since--how many years is it, now? Of course, I will have to wait until > after discovery to see a doctor for my condition--didn't need one until now to get >over > my deep emotional stress. Of course, going on shopping sprees might help--I could >have > one of those beauty makeovers--the one that costs $1,500 or so. I know this sounds > silly, but in a circus like this, it might fly. Good heavens, now they are putting > hearsay evidence into a court document--one of the women's friends deposition. >Excuse > me. And sometimes I think Clinton is an accident waiting to happen in his response >to > this mess. Walking a political and a legal fence at the same time tends to do this, >I > would imagine. > > jackief Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I heard the same about the Willey woman being the big problem for the w.h. But, again, why wait till now?? Didn't the job she alledgedly got because of Clinton quite what she thought it would be?? Let's look at the major actors so far: Tripp, the motherly woman who draws sexually harassed women to her like a moth to a flame; Paula, who seems to be pouting because she didn't receive flowers and is so emotionally distraught--but doesn't forget to smile for the cameras at all times; Monica, who admits being a pathological liar; now Willey whose deposition is pretty vague except for remembering one thing clearly; and Clinton who says he is vague about all of it. What a circus. Maybe I should sue Clinton maintaining that I am suffering from great emotional stress because he didn't include me in his overtures to women and my self-esteem as a woman has suffered ever since--how many years is it, now? Of course, I will have to wait until after discovery to see a doctor for my condition--didn't need one until now to get over my deep emotional stress. Of course, going on shopping sprees might help--I could have one of those beauty makeovers--the one that costs $1,500 or so. I know this sounds silly, but in a circus like this, it might fly. Good heavens, now they are putting hearsay evidence into a court document--one of the women's friends deposition. Excuse me. And sometimes I think Clinton is an accident waiting to happen in his response to this mess. Walking a political and a legal fence at the same time tends to do this, I would imagine. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > Tripp has been around a long time from what I understand, and she has > done these things before. So it really wouldn't surprise me one bit. I > wonder why they keep her in the WH like they do though, when they know > what her history is. Doesn't really make much sense to me. > > But then again none of this does. > > I guess the woman whose husband died made a very convincing statement to > the grand jury. She is repeating everything on 60 Minutes Sunday. > > This is really suppose to be something that might bring Clinton down, > because he was "suppose" to have said he was only comforting her, and > didn't come on to her. > > Sue > > > > Hi Sue > > > > I wonder if Tripp was the one that suggested Bush had an affair in the first place. > > Tripp's friends (?) seem to be always being harassed by some powerful figure. > > > > jackief > > > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: Tripp has been around a long time from what I understand, and she has done these things before. So it really wouldn't surprise me one bit. I wonder why they keep her in the WH like they do though, when they know what her history is. Doesn't really make much sense to me. But then again none of this does. I guess the woman whose husband died made a very convincing statement to the grand jury. She is repeating everything on 60 Minutes Sunday. This is really suppose to be something that might bring Clinton down, because he was "suppose" to have said he was only comforting her, and didn't come on to her. Sue > > Hi Sue > > I wonder if Tripp was the one that suggested Bush had an affair in the first place. > Tripp's friends (?) seem to be always being harassed by some powerful figure. > > jackief > -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: Oh, I will have to ask him about this one, because he said last night that it was part of his point. Now I wonder if he knows anymore what he is talking about than I do. He probably ment it the same way that you did. Sue > > Hi Sue, > > That was my point. It was the democratic party who was doing the > attacking against Nixon and they DID win the White House in the next > election. I was simply conditioning the observation by noting that Nixon > was shown to be guilty of breaking the law, so that probably helped > Carter in the election. If nothing is proven then the public will tend > to hold the attacking party more responsible for false accusations, IMO. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: >From what I understood, Lewinsky's attorny was going to go before a judge and see to it that Starr did hold up his end of the bargain regarding immunity. But I never did hear if he did do that or not, and if so what happened. Sue > HI Sue, > > I agree, I think he should give Lewinsky full immunity and get her in > front of that Grand Jury. Then work out a deal for Clinton to testify. > They he should wrap this up in a few weeks, write his report and send it > to Congress. That would get the monkey off his back and put the ball > into Congress's court. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:25:40 -0500 moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >> >> >> Hi Mac, >> >> I think you're right on with this one. We're already seeing this >with >> the guy who wrote the "Paula" article for the Spectator now telling >the >> truth of what was behind it. And the widow of the democratic >Congressman >> winning that seat in the election in California by a much bigger >margin >> than expected show the beginning signs of exactly what you describe. >> >> Bill >> > >Afternoon Bill, > Another sign of this is the interview Sen. Trent Lott did last >weekend. He tried to >downplay it after it aired but it showed his concern. I believe he >knows that from what >has been leaked and how the public has responded that his party has >already lost the >war although they continue to do battle. I think it's time they lick >their wounds, bury >their dead, and get on with what they were elected to do. >...Mac Hi Mac, Yeah, one thing about politics is that the crowd will quickly abandon the ship when it's obvious that it's going down. 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 Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, I agree, I think he should give Lewinsky full immunity and get her in front of that Grand Jury. Then work out a deal for Clinton to testify. They he should wrap this up in a few weeks, write his report and send it to Congress. That would get the monkey off his back and put the ball into Congress's court. Bill On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:26:01 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >So then it comes back to what is Starr going to do now that there are >so many people (in high places) telling him to bring an end to this. > >How is he going to handle all these people if he has to fight it out >in >court in order to get Clinton to be subpoenaed, or work out a deal >with >him that takes months. And if Ginsburg is making him work for >Monica's >testimony, which could also take months. > >Perhaps the best thing that Starr could do would be to honor the >immunity thing he offered, if he did offer it, and that could force >Clinton to testify. > >Or could he take it before the impeachment panel without Clinton ever >testifying at all. > >Sue >> >> Hi Sue, >> >> Starr won't be able to do this, IMO. If Clinton decides to fight >the >> subpoena it would take months before the courts decided the issue on >> whether he should be forced to testify. More likely is that Starr's >> people will work with Clinton's people to come to an agreement as to >the >> terms of his testifying before the Grand Jury. And for sure >Lewinsky >> will go first. Which brings us back to the contention by Ginsberg >that >> Starr offered her full immunity and should honor that agreement. >This >> could take months to sort out anyway. >> >> Bill > > >-- >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: L&I Jim McDougal
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > > Hi Mac, > > I think you're right on with this one. We're already seeing this with > the guy who wrote the "Paula" article for the Spectator now telling the > truth of what was behind it. And the widow of the democratic Congressman > winning that seat in the election in California by a much bigger margin > than expected show the beginning signs of exactly what you describe. > > Bill > Afternoon Bill, Another sign of this is the interview Sen. Trent Lott did last weekend. He tried to downplay it after it aired but it showed his concern. I believe he knows that from what has been leaked and how the public has responded that his party has already lost the war although they continue to do battle. I think it's time they lick their wounds, bury their dead, and get on with what they were elected to do. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: So then it comes back to what is Starr going to do now that there are so many people (in high places) telling him to bring an end to this. How is he going to handle all these people if he has to fight it out in court in order to get Clinton to be subpoenaed, or work out a deal with him that takes months. And if Ginsburg is making him work for Monica's testimony, which could also take months. Perhaps the best thing that Starr could do would be to honor the immunity thing he offered, if he did offer it, and that could force Clinton to testify. Or could he take it before the impeachment panel without Clinton ever testifying at all. Sue > > Hi Sue, > > Starr won't be able to do this, IMO. If Clinton decides to fight the > subpoena it would take months before the courts decided the issue on > whether he should be forced to testify. More likely is that Starr's > people will work with Clinton's people to come to an agreement as to the > terms of his testifying before the Grand Jury. And for sure Lewinsky > will go first. Which brings us back to the contention by Ginsberg that > Starr offered her full immunity and should honor that agreement. This > could take months to sort out anyway. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: You would think that they would already know this. :) Last night I asked Bobby about it again, and he told me about some of the instances where this happened, which were the same ones Bill mentioned. I guess part of it may be that a lot of people always vote for the underdog. I dunno. But if history is any indicator, it looks like Gore will be our next President. Don't any of these people take poli sci classes? > > Hi Sue > > Hmm, maybe the Republicans should be taking that class with your son . If > this is really a political attempt to show up the Democrats, it will all be in > vain, if history repeats itself. > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, Starr won't be able to do this, IMO. If Clinton decides to fight the subpoena it would take months before the courts decided the issue on whether he should be forced to testify. More likely is that Starr's people will work with Clinton's people to come to an agreement as to the terms of his testifying before the Grand Jury. And for sure Lewinsky will go first. Which brings us back to the contention by Ginsberg that Starr offered her full immunity and should honor that agreement. This could take months to sort out anyway. Bill On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:40:24 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >I just read yesterday that the offer from Pepperdine is still open to >Starr any time he wants to take advantage of it. > >I also heard this morning that the investigation is coming to a close, >and right now they are trying to get Clinton to testify before the >Grand >Jury. The question did come up as to whether or not they could or >would >subpoena him. > >IMO, Clinton has kept his mouth shut about this whole thing (smart >thing >to do IMO) until he hears what Monica has to say about the whole deal. > >So I think (and I could be very wrong about this) that Starr will get >Clinton before the grand jury first, get his testimony, and then call >Monica and get hers. That could prove to be really bad for Clinton, >and >I think that is why Starr would do it that way. > >Sue _ 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 Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, That was my point. It was the democratic party who was doing the attacking against Nixon and they DID win the White House in the next election. I was simply conditioning the observation by noting that Nixon was shown to be guilty of breaking the law, so that probably helped Carter in the election. If nothing is proven then the public will tend to hold the attacking party more responsible for false accusations, IMO. Bill On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:46:37 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >I should have said it better. Bobby was saying the attacking party >never wins the WH in the next election. But you proved the point. :) > >Sue >> >> HI Sue, >> >> Well, Jimmy Carter won the WH in 1977 after they had gotten Nixon in >> 1974. >> >> But Nixon resigned after they had the evidence that he had broken >the >> law. So maybe that doesn't count. But the democrats went after >Nixon big >> time and the Republicans defended Nixon until the truth became >obvious. >> >> Bill > >-- >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: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:30:38 -0500 moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >Sue Hartigan wrote: > >> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Hi Bill: >> >> My son is taking a poli sci class and came home with something that >I >> thought was interesting. He said that in all of history whenever a >> political party went after someone in the other party like this, >they >> never won the WH in the next election. >> >> Sue > >Evenin' Sue, > If you consider the polls, the Republicans, are going to have a >real tough >time in the mid-term elections. I believe they may lose control of the >House and Senate. >Unless Starr came come up with something of substance real soon I >think you will see >his supporters asking for closure. This investigation, although very >popular with Clinton >foes and the media in general, is a political nightmare for the >Republican Party. I think >you will soon see alot of right wingers jumping off the sinking ship >and scramble to >salvage their spot at the public trough. >...Mac Hi Mac, I think you're right on with this one. We're already seeing this with the guy who wrote the "Paula" article for the Spectator now telling the truth of what was behind it. And the widow of the democratic Congressman winning that seat in the election in California by a much bigger margin than expected show the beginning signs of exactly what you describe. 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue Hmm, maybe the Republicans should be taking that class with your son . If this is really a political attempt to show up the Democrats, it will all be in vain, if history repeats itself. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Bill: > > My son is taking a poli sci class and came home with something that I > thought was interesting. He said that in all of history whenever a > political party went after someone in the other party like this, they > never won the WH in the next election. > > Sue > > Hi Jackie, > > > > Exactly! I think the truly emotional Clinton haters we've seen have done > > more to raise Clinton's overall popularity rating than anything he could > > have done. It's the old saying that you can judge someone quite > > accurately by looking at his enemies. > > > > Bill > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:05:41 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >No matter how one feels about Clinton himself, or his wife, if you >really look at the whole picture you can see where this country isn't >all that bad off, IMO. Now I know that congress has more to do with >that actually than the President, but still. > >I can see really strange things that have happened in the WH that >don't >make any sense. And I wonder about a lot of it. But so far, as far >as >I know anyway, there has been nothing that anyone can actually pin on >Clinton. And there have been numerous grand jury investigations >trying >to do just that. > >I honestly feel that most of the American public is just tired of the >whole thing. They are sick of hearing Monica's name all over the >place. >I know I am. :) > >As for Starr, that man is scary. He seems to be able to do things >that >no one else would ever even think of. I can't imagine any other >lawyer >or whatever he is, calling in a persons private lawyer and questioning >them. And of course there are other things too. > >I just wish that we could be privy to what is real information and >what >is just dream information. > >I honestly don't think anything will ever come of any of this. At >least >not until Clinton is out of office. And then who will even care. > >Sue HI Sue, I think the most important aspect of our government is how the president interacts with Congress to get things done. IMO, this is an area of Clinton's greatest accomplishments. He managed to defuse a very hostile GOP controlled Congress (especially after the '96 elections) and created a strong structure of the executive and legislative branches working together. The fiery and misguided rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and his cronies was stifled and people got down to the tough job of running the country. I agree that nothing much will come of the Starr investigation as it relates to Bill and Hillary Clinton. 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue Who ever said learning is easy. And how do you learn if you don't look at facts from all sides?? jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > It really makes it hard on someone who wants to know all the facts > before they render an opinion. :) > > Especially when there are points on both sides which make for a good > argument on both sides of the issue. > > Sue > > Hi Bill > > > > I really think that is why some get so angry when people try to remain > > objective and look at the whole picture. They just can't deal with people > > who are not willing to jump on one side or the other automatically. It > > reminds me of what a counselor once said about some men during the women's > > movement. The men in question knew how to deal with aggressive or passive > > women--but were at a loss when dealing with an assertive woman. Much the > > same I think--how do you deal with someone that is not reacting emotionally > > when you are in a political debate?? > > > > jackief > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I wonder if Tripp was the one that suggested Bush had an affair in the first place. Tripp's friends (?) seem to be always being harassed by some powerful figure. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Jackie: > > There was a documentary on Sat about the Bush/Reagan era. Bush was > accused of being right in the middle of the Iran/Contra affair. He said > that Reagan and his people kept him out of any conversations, and/or > meetings regarding this issue, and that he knew nothing at all. He was > also accused of having an affair, but denied it. > > The whole thing sounds very familiar. :) > > Sue > > > > Hi Sue > > > > I wonder if this political, masked as legal, affair is just a reflection of > > what has occurred in other areas--the idea of winning justifying any measures > > to get there, Now I know why the statue of justice wears a blindfold. She is > > embarrassed by how the law is being used, not only in the Clinton affair : ) > > > > Did anyone hear that our friend Tripp also accused Bush of some things but that > > it was never made public?? You know how those rumors go--just thought I would > > check if anyone else had heard that. > > > > jackief > > -- > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: I just read yesterday that the offer from Pepperdine is still open to Starr any time he wants to take advantage of it. I also heard this morning that the investigation is coming to a close, and right now they are trying to get Clinton to testify before the Grand Jury. The question did come up as to whether or not they could or would subpoena him. IMO, Clinton has kept his mouth shut about this whole thing (smart thing to do IMO) until he hears what Monica has to say about the whole deal. So I think (and I could be very wrong about this) that Starr will get Clinton before the grand jury first, get his testimony, and then call Monica and get hers. That could prove to be really bad for Clinton, and I think that is why Starr would do it that way. Sue > HI Sue, > > I think the most important aspect of our government is how the president > interacts with Congress to get things done. IMO, this is an area of > Clinton's greatest accomplishments. He managed to defuse a very hostile > GOP controlled Congress (especially after the '96 elections) and created > a strong structure of the executive and legislative branches working > together. The fiery and misguided rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and his > cronies was stifled and people got down to the tough job of running the > country. > > I agree that nothing much will come of the Starr investigation as it > relates to Bill and Hillary Clinton. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: I should have said it better. Bobby was saying the attacking party never wins the WH in the next election. But you proved the point. :) Sue > > HI Sue, > > Well, Jimmy Carter won the WH in 1977 after they had gotten Nixon in > 1974. > > But Nixon resigned after they had the evidence that he had broken the > law. So maybe that doesn't count. But the democrats went after Nixon big > time and the Republicans defended Nixon until the truth became obvious. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Mac: Given that, it looks like history may repeat itself. :) I didn't make myself clear it is the party making all the accusations that doesn't make it to the WH in the following election. Or so history says. Sue > Evenin' Sue, >If you consider the polls, the Republicans, are going to have a real tough > time in the mid-term elections. I believe they may lose control of the House and >Senate. > Unless Starr came come up with something of substance real soon I think you will see > his supporters asking for closure. This investigation, although very popular with >Clinton > foes and the media in general, is a political nightmare for the Republican Party. I >think > you will soon see alot of right wingers jumping off the sinking ship and scramble to > salvage their spot at the public trough. > ...Mac -- 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 Jim McDougal
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Bill: > > My son is taking a poli sci class and came home with something that I > thought was interesting. He said that in all of history whenever a > political party went after someone in the other party like this, they > never won the WH in the next election. > > Sue Evenin' Sue, If you consider the polls, the Republicans, are going to have a real tough time in the mid-term elections. I believe they may lose control of the House and Senate. Unless Starr came come up with something of substance real soon I think you will see his supporters asking for closure. This investigation, although very popular with Clinton foes and the media in general, is a political nightmare for the Republican Party. I think you will soon see alot of right wingers jumping off the sinking ship and scramble to salvage their spot at the public trough. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: Actually no facts have come out on this as far as I can tell. As for anyone sleeping with anyone else, IMO, so what, none of my business and I personally could care less. There have been six grand jury's called and nothing has come out of any of them, regarding the Clintons. If he lied or suborned perjury then he should be out. But so far nothing has come out about that at all. Now that they are calling the only two people who really know what happened maybe we will find out something. But I somehow doubt it. > Waiting for ALL the facts means one will never have an opinion at all. There > are always more "facts" -- or at least factoids -- to consider. At some point > one must drive it or park it. (Or, in slightly more salacious terms, shit or > get off the pot.) > Doc > -- 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 Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-12 01:03:19 EST, you write: << It really makes it hard on someone who wants to know all the facts before they render an opinion. :) Especially when there are points on both sides which make for a good argument on both sides of the issue. Sue >> Waiting for ALL the facts means one will never have an opinion at all. There are always more "facts" -- or at least factoids -- to consider. At some point one must drive it or park it. (Or, in slightly more salacious terms, shit or get off the pot.) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Well, Jimmy Carter won the WH in 1977 after they had gotten Nixon in 1974. But Nixon resigned after they had the evidence that he had broken the law. So maybe that doesn't count. But the democrats went after Nixon big time and the Republicans defended Nixon until the truth became obvious. Bill On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:42:12 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >My son is taking a poli sci class and came home with something that I >thought was interesting. He said that in all of history whenever a >political party went after someone in the other party like this, they >never won the WH in the next election. > >Sue >> Hi Jackie, >> >> Exactly! I think the truly emotional Clinton haters we've seen have >done >> more to raise Clinton's overall popularity rating than anything he >could >> have done. It's the old saying that you can judge someone quite >> accurately by looking at his enemies. >> >> Bill > > >-- >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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: My son is taking a poli sci class and came home with something that I thought was interesting. He said that in all of history whenever a political party went after someone in the other party like this, they never won the WH in the next election. Sue > Hi Jackie, > > Exactly! I think the truly emotional Clinton haters we've seen have done > more to raise Clinton's overall popularity rating than anything he could > have done. It's the old saying that you can judge someone quite > accurately by looking at his enemies. > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: It really makes it hard on someone who wants to know all the facts before they render an opinion. :) Especially when there are points on both sides which make for a good argument on both sides of the issue. Sue > Hi Bill > > I really think that is why some get so angry when people try to remain > objective and look at the whole picture. They just can't deal with people > who are not willing to jump on one side or the other automatically. It > reminds me of what a counselor once said about some men during the women's > movement. The men in question knew how to deal with aggressive or passive > women--but were at a loss when dealing with an assertive woman. Much the > same I think--how do you deal with someone that is not reacting emotionally > when you are in a political debate?? > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie: There was a documentary on Sat about the Bush/Reagan era. Bush was accused of being right in the middle of the Iran/Contra affair. He said that Reagan and his people kept him out of any conversations, and/or meetings regarding this issue, and that he knew nothing at all. He was also accused of having an affair, but denied it. The whole thing sounds very familiar. :) Sue > > Hi Sue > > I wonder if this political, masked as legal, affair is just a reflection of > what has occurred in other areas--the idea of winning justifying any measures > to get there, Now I know why the statue of justice wears a blindfold. She is > embarrassed by how the law is being used, not only in the Clinton affair : ) > > Did anyone hear that our friend Tripp also accused Bush of some things but that > it was never made public?? You know how those rumors go--just thought I would > check if anyone else had heard that. > > jackief -- 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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: The guy who wrote this thing is way out there on another planet or something. He has come up with this idea that there is a CIA type of group who goes around killing anyone who hurts the president. They are there strictly to protect him no matter what. But then in the middle of the book he changes it around to say that they could also be there to help out Starr by killing these people and thus adding suspicion on to the President. It sounded like something that I would overlook on the book shelf that is for sure. You are right about one thing though, money can be made off of anything. I just wonder how many people actually believe this crap. Sue > HI Sue, > > Wow...a book. So this guy can not only get the political benefits of > spreading crap like this, he can also get money from others who like to > read about it and use it to support THEIR crazy ideas. What a country!! > > Bill -- 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 Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:56:32 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > >> I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the >White >> House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as >quick >> to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling >the >> truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased >> people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp. >> >> Bill >> > >Hi Bill > >I really think that is why some get so angry when people try to remain >objective and look at the whole picture. They just can't deal with >people >who are not willing to jump on one side or the other automatically. >It >reminds me of what a counselor once said about some men during the >women's >movement. The men in question knew how to deal with aggressive or >passive >women--but were at a loss when dealing with an assertive woman. Much >the >same I think--how do you deal with someone that is not reacting >emotionally >when you are in a political debate?? > >jackief Hi Jackie, Exactly! I think the truly emotional Clinton haters we've seen have done more to raise Clinton's overall popularity rating than anything he could have done. It's the old saying that you can judge someone quite accurately by looking at his enemies. 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 Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DocCec wrote: > DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's as bad as trying to talk to someone who's sober when you're drunk. Of > course, the reverse is no bed of roses either. > Doc > Hi Doc ROTF It is funny how people, when drunk, have all the answers and those 'darn ole stupid' sober people do not have the vision to see what is so evident. jackief > 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DocCec wrote: > DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In a message dated 98-03-10 17:20:39 EST, you write: > > << > Oh, oh Doc > > The news media will go wild as will some of the "quick to accuse" > > jackief > >> > > Is that anything like a rush to judgment, jackief? > Doc Hi Doc More like a stampede, don't you think? Poor Johnny will never live that phrase down . jackief > > > 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue I wonder if this political, masked as legal, affair is just a reflection of what has occurred in other areas--the idea of winning justifying any measures to get there, Now I know why the statue of justice wears a blindfold. She is embarrassed by how the law is being used, not only in the Clinton affair : ) Did anyone hear that our friend Tripp also accused Bush of some things but that it was never made public?? You know how those rumors go--just thought I would check if anyone else had heard that. jackief Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Bill: > > No matter how one feels about Clinton himself, or his wife, if you > really look at the whole picture you can see where this country isn't > all that bad off, IMO. Now I know that congress has more to do with > that actually than the President, but still. > > I can see really strange things that have happened in the WH that don't > make any sense. And I wonder about a lot of it. But so far, as far as > I know anyway, there has been nothing that anyone can actually pin on > Clinton. And there have been numerous grand jury investigations trying > to do just that. > > I honestly feel that most of the American public is just tired of the > whole thing. They are sick of hearing Monica's name all over the place. > I know I am. :) > > As for Starr, that man is scary. He seems to be able to do things that > no one else would ever even think of. I can't imagine any other lawyer > or whatever he is, calling in a persons private lawyer and questioning > them. And of course there are other things too. > > I just wish that we could be privy to what is real information and what > is just dream information. > > I honestly don't think anything will ever come of any of this. At least > not until Clinton is out of office. And then who will even care. > > Sue > > > > Hi Jackie, > > > > One thing is for sure. You can take any fact and if it's pertinent to a > > political issue there will be spin doctors on both sides who will convert > > that fact into a fairy tale that supports their side of the issue. > > > > Yeah, McDougal had a lot of baggage, including lying about things during > > the course of the investigation. As with any other witness who lies, the > > question becomes what are they lying about and when are they telling the > > truth. Also he had a lot of emotional problems as well as his physical > > problems. And of course, he was going to receive benefits from Starr for > > his testimony. > > > > I think the biggest benefit of McDougal involves any documents he may > > have turned over to Starr as opposed to what he may have testified to. > > > > I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White > > House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick > > to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the > > truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased > > people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp. > > > > Bill > > 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: L&I Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: No matter how one feels about Clinton himself, or his wife, if you really look at the whole picture you can see where this country isn't all that bad off, IMO. Now I know that congress has more to do with that actually than the President, but still. I can see really strange things that have happened in the WH that don't make any sense. And I wonder about a lot of it. But so far, as far as I know anyway, there has been nothing that anyone can actually pin on Clinton. And there have been numerous grand jury investigations trying to do just that. I honestly feel that most of the American public is just tired of the whole thing. They are sick of hearing Monica's name all over the place. I know I am. :) As for Starr, that man is scary. He seems to be able to do things that no one else would ever even think of. I can't imagine any other lawyer or whatever he is, calling in a persons private lawyer and questioning them. And of course there are other things too. I just wish that we could be privy to what is real information and what is just dream information. I honestly don't think anything will ever come of any of this. At least not until Clinton is out of office. And then who will even care. Sue > Hi Jackie, > > One thing is for sure. You can take any fact and if it's pertinent to a > political issue there will be spin doctors on both sides who will convert > that fact into a fairy tale that supports their side of the issue. > > Yeah, McDougal had a lot of baggage, including lying about things during > the course of the investigation. As with any other witness who lies, the > question becomes what are they lying about and when are they telling the > truth. Also he had a lot of emotional problems as well as his physical > problems. And of course, he was going to receive benefits from Starr for > his testimony. > > I think the biggest benefit of McDougal involves any documents he may > have turned over to Starr as opposed to what he may have testified to. > > I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White > House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick > to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the > truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased > people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp. > > Bill Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Oh, oh Doc The news media will go wild as will some of the "quick to accuse" jackief DocCec wrote: > DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In a message dated 98-03-10 05:45:35 EST, you write: > > << But isn't McDougal the witness that had a lot of > baggage besides the "copping" of a plea to reduce his sentence?? It is > ironic that his death did occur when it did--just goes to show you why some > people believe so strongly in conspiracy theories and how there is always > some truth that gets exaggerated. >> > > And now, with the news that he was in solitary confinement at the time, the > waves are definitely getting higher. Official explanation is he refused to > give a urine sample for a drug test -- his attorneys say that because of his > medications he found it hard or impossible to produce a sample on demand. The > plot thickens. > Doc > > 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: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: HI Sue, Wow...a book. So this guy can not only get the political benefits of spreading crap like this, he can also get money from others who like to read about it and use it to support THEIR crazy ideas. What a country!! Bill On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:53:45 -0800 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill: > >There is a whole book out on this. The author has even included the >wife of the trooper, and the husband of one of the women Clinton was >suppose to have slept with. > >All in all there are quite a few deaths that he is attributing to the >people who are protecting the President. > >Sue >> HI Doc, >> >> Stupid people are so predictable, aren't they? >> >> Bill >> >> PS: DO NOT reply that you knew I was going to say that. :) > >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 Jim McDougal
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: There is a whole book out on this. The author has even included the wife of the trooper, and the husband of one of the women Clinton was suppose to have slept with. All in all there are quite a few deaths that he is attributing to the people who are protecting the President. Sue > HI Doc, > > Stupid people are so predictable, aren't they? > > Bill > > PS: DO NOT reply that you knew I was going to say that. :) Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-10 11:46:09 EST, you write: << HI Doc, Stupid people are so predictable, aren't they? Bill PS: DO NOT reply that you knew I was going to say that. :) >> Hmm. Now how did you know I was considering that reply? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White > House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick > to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the > truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased > people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp. > > Bill > Hi Bill I really think that is why some get so angry when people try to remain objective and look at the whole picture. They just can't deal with people who are not willing to jump on one side or the other automatically. It reminds me of what a counselor once said about some men during the women's movement. The men in question knew how to deal with aggressive or passive women--but were at a loss when dealing with an assertive woman. Much the same I think--how do you deal with someone that is not reacting emotionally when you are in a political debate?? jackief > _ > 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 -- 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: L&I Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-10 18:06:21 EST, you write: << Much the same I think--how do you deal with someone that is not reacting emotionally when you are in a political debate?? jackief >> It's as bad as trying to talk to someone who's sober when you're drunk. Of course, the reverse is no bed of roses either. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-10 17:20:39 EST, you write: << Oh, oh Doc The news media will go wild as will some of the "quick to accuse" jackief >> Is that anything like a rush to judgment, jackief? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:43:10 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Bill > >Missed the tape with Greta. But isn't McDougal the witness that had a >lot of >baggage besides the "copping" of a plea to reduce his sentence?? It >is >ironic that his death did occur when it did--just goes to show you why >some >people believe so strongly in conspiracy theories and how there is >always >some truth that gets exaggerated. But, I didn't hear as much about >this >event, all I kept getting on tv was the discussion of the apology >letter to >the President by the journalist who broke the news about Paula Jones. >Of >course, he was paid off by the w.h. was a familar refrain. > >BTW, I just heard a quote yesterday that really pointed out the use of >semantics to mask the reality. The person said that Clinton had lied >when he >told the public that the Republican Congress was trying to cut social >security. He said that was not true, they were merely proposing a >lowering >of the trajectory. Hmm, what the h## is that I thought. Well, it >just meant >that the cost of living raises would not equal the raise in the cost >of >living, so someone asked him if that didn't mean a cut in monies as >those on >SS would receive less in "real" money that before. He said no "just a >lowering in the trajectory." My head was spinning by that time. >Seems more >of that "looks like a duck" stuff. I think George Carlin was right >when he >talked about our language getting soft, IOW, it softened the harsh >reality of >what was really occurring. I think he called he referred to the poor >as >economically disadvantaged or something like that. George is one of >the best >social critics in the comedy field, I think. > >jackief Hi Jackie, One thing is for sure. You can take any fact and if it's pertinent to a political issue there will be spin doctors on both sides who will convert that fact into a fairy tale that supports their side of the issue. Yeah, McDougal had a lot of baggage, including lying about things during the course of the investigation. As with any other witness who lies, the question becomes what are they lying about and when are they telling the truth. Also he had a lot of emotional problems as well as his physical problems. And of course, he was going to receive benefits from Starr for his testimony. I think the biggest benefit of McDougal involves any documents he may have turned over to Starr as opposed to what he may have testified to. I'm amused at how quickly the right wing radical jump up to say the White House has paid off someone to say something when they are just as quick to defend anything said against Clinton as an honest person telling the truth. It is that type of transparency that tends to sway unbiased people to fall in on the side of the Clinton camp. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:36:03 EST DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-03-09 12:07:28 EST, you write: > ><< Hi Jackie, > > Rumor has it that on his deathbed he whispered "Bill and Hillary are > innocent." :) > > I wonder how long it will take for us to read on the Internet how the > Clintons killed McDougal to keep him quiet. > > Bill>> > >You're late, Bill. That's out there already -- along with its >opposite, that >Starr did it because he wouldn't say what he (Starr) wanted him to >say. >Nothing is ever easy, is it? >Doc HI Doc, Stupid people are so predictable, aren't they? Bill PS: DO NOT reply that you knew I was going to say that. :) _ 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 Jim McDougal
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-10 05:45:35 EST, you write: << But isn't McDougal the witness that had a lot of baggage besides the "copping" of a plea to reduce his sentence?? It is ironic that his death did occur when it did--just goes to show you why some people believe so strongly in conspiracy theories and how there is always some truth that gets exaggerated. >> And now, with the news that he was in solitary confinement at the time, the waves are definitely getting higher. Official explanation is he refused to give a urine sample for a drug test -- his attorneys say that because of his medications he found it hard or impossible to produce a sample on demand. The plot thickens. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Jim McDougal
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill Missed the tape with Greta. But isn't McDougal the witness that had a lot of baggage besides the "copping" of a plea to reduce his sentence?? It is ironic that his death did occur when it did--just goes to show you why some people believe so strongly in conspiracy theories and how there is always some truth that gets exaggerated. But, I didn't hear as much about this event, all I kept getting on tv was the discussion of the apology letter to the President by the journalist who broke the news about Paula Jones. Of course, he was paid off by the w.h. was a familar refrain. BTW, I just heard a quote yesterday that really pointed out the use of semantics to mask the reality. The person said that Clinton had lied when he told the public that the Republican Congress was trying to cut social security. He said that was not true, they were merely proposing a lowering of the trajectory. Hmm, what the h## is that I thought. Well, it just meant that the cost of living raises would not equal the raise in the cost of living, so someone asked him if that didn't mean a cut in monies as those on SS would receive less in "real" money that before. He said no "just a lowering in the trajectory." My head was spinning by that time. Seems more of that "looks like a duck" stuff. I think George Carlin was right when he talked about our language getting soft, IOW, it softened the harsh reality of what was really occurring. I think he called he referred to the poor as economically disadvantaged or something like that. George is one of the best social critics in the comedy field, I think. jackief William J. Foristal wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Jackie, > > LOL...I thought death bed statements were treated as the gospel truth. :) > > I agree with everything that Mac said about McDougal. He wouldn't have > been a very effective witness for Starr. But he MAY have turned over > some information that could cause Clinton some grief. > > I have a lot more respect for McDougal now after seeing a tape on Burden > of Proof where he tells Greta to go to Hell. :) > > Bill > > On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 12:30:36 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Heck Bill > > > >I figured that would be the topic of discussion already. I'm sure > >that > >his deathbed confession would be withheld in the courts, don't you > >. > > > >jackief > > > >William J. Foristal wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >> > >> Hi Jackie, > >> > >> Rumor has it that on his deathbed he whispered "Bill and Hillary are > >> innocent." :) > >> > >> I wonder how long it will take for us to read on the Internet how > >the > >> Clintons killed McDougal to keep him quiet. > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 05:56:30 -0600 Jackie Fellows > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> writes: > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Mac > >> > > >> > > >> >I saw the news flash, but wondered how that will affect the > >> >independent > >> >counselor's case. Can they use anything he said to Starr and his > >> >staff?? > >> > > >> >jackief > >> > > >> >moonshine wrote: > >> > > >> >> moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> > >> >> Evenin', > >> >> Just heard JM died today of a heart attack in Ft.Worth, > >Texas. > >> >> ...Mac > >> >> > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > >> > >_ > >> 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 > > > > > > > >-- > >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 > > > > _ > 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 ent
