Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: You don't even have to go back that far. LBJ has a child out there who also has LBJ's name on his birth certificate. But of course this wasn't found out until long after he left office. In fact not until he left the earth. Sue > The most interesting one of all, of course, was Grover Cleveland. He > survived the scandal of an illegitimate son. Cleveland told his campaign to > answer all questions honestly and fully. That didn't completely occur. > There was a secret that was not divulged. > > Cleveland had his name placed on the birth certificate. The circle of men > for whom the woman was providing relief from home and hearth were all > married except for Cleveland and in order to preserve domestic tranquility > for his friends Cleveland took credit for work that he likely had not > accomplished. An intelligent electorate returned Cleveland to the White > House after a lapse. > > All our early presidents were accused of all manner of crimes. They do not > seem to me to have been of the dreary quality that so concerns this group. > Best, Terry > -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Terry: > > You don't even have to go back that far. LBJ has a child out there who > also has LBJ's name on his birth certificate. But of course this wasn't > found out until long after he left office. In fact not until he left > the earth. > > Sue Mornin' Sue, LBJ had a very strong liking for the ladies. Even Nixon had a mistress. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Mornin' Sue, > LBJ had a very strong liking for the ladies. LBJ had huge appetites. And he was not discriminating. But ladies were definitely not his thing. Even Nixon had a mistress. >...Mac That's more difficult to believe than Clinton denying a new affair. I wonder if he ever took off his tie at the beach. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hi Mac, > > > > LBJ had huge appetites. And he was not discriminating. But ladies were > definitely not his thing I disagree. He had a very active libido and he was very proud of his "Johnson". > . > > Even Nixon had a mistress. > >...Mac > > That's more difficult to believe than Clinton denying a new affair. I > wonder if he ever took off his tie at the beach. She was chinese and maybe he did leave his tie onMac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> LBJ had huge appetites. And he was not discriminating. But ladies were >> definitely not his thing > >I disagree. He had a very active libido and he was very proud of his "Johnson". That's what I said, Mac. Surely I don't have to explain to grownups. :-} Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << > LBJ had huge appetites. And he was not discriminating. But ladies were > definitely not his thing I disagree. He had a very active libido and he was very proud of his "Johnson". >> I think the first post was referring to the difference between ladies and other women, right? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-22 07:51:08 EST, you write: << Even Nixon had a mistress. >...Mac That's more difficult to believe than Clinton denying a new affair. I wonder if he ever took off his tie at the beach. Best, Terry >> LOL Terry! He may have, but I suspect he kept his socks on, and I don't mean just at the beach. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ><< > LBJ had huge appetites. And he was not discriminating. But ladies were > > definitely not his thing > > I disagree. He had a very active libido and he was very proud of his >"Johnson". > >> > >I think the first post was referring to the difference between ladies and >other women, right? >Doc You are a lady of great discernment, Doc. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-22 12:24:48 EST, you write: << You are a lady of great discernment, Doc. >> The discernment is fine, Terry, but just let me be a woman, ok? The "lady" thing is a matter of opinion, and I"m never really sure what it means. Knees together at all times, little finger crimped, that sort of thing? Not me! Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-03-22 12:24:48 EST, you write: > ><< You are a lady of great discernment, Doc. >> > >The discernment is fine, Terry, but just let me be a woman, ok? The "lady" >thing is a matter of opinion, and I"m never really sure what it means. Knees >together at all times, little finger crimped, that sort of thing? Not me! >Doc Lyndon Johnson's manners, bearing and tastes were those of a pig - or at least as close as I can get at the risk of demeaning pigs. He was a physical coward who became a tyrant. He destroyed the credibility of a most courageous and intellectually inventive and farsighted politician in Hubert Humphrey by using his lust for the presidency. Humphrey was used like a snot rag. The voters found even an ugly gnome like Nixon more attractive after the job Johnson did on him. I don't mean to insult any woman by thinking that they might not be attracted to such a man or be attractive to him because of their independence. It is after all only a guess. For all I really know you might want to be sex slave to a bully. :-} I never thought of Victorians as particularly refined but each of us can decide that. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-22 13:11:40 EST, you write: << I don't mean to insult any woman by thinking that they might not be attracted to such a man or be attractive to him because of their independence. It is after all only a guess. For all I really know you might want to be sex slave to a bully. :-} >> Moi? Some sex slave, love. My daughter is laughing herself into apoplexy just reading that! Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Then I can ask Mac, what if the allegations turn out to be true? Wouldn't it be best for all concerned to stop the mud slinging on both sides and lets just deal with the facts? That's my stand on this whole ordeal. Deal with the facts stop the derogatory tales on both side. moonshine wrote: > Afternoon Kathy, >What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president > and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. > ...Mac -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue :) I can appreciate your ponderings on the respectability of the office of President. Yet I personally do not foresee a problem with finding people who will run for president. It's the ultimate goal for those who strive for power so they say. There will not be a day people don't strive to attain it, no matter what the costs, private or otherwise. Sue Hartigan wrote: > Hi Doc: > > To be absolutely honest even if I were qualified, or even over qualified > to be President, and had nothing in my background that could hurt me in > the least, I wouldn't run. Especially right now. > > And that is where we are going to lose good people. Because even if > they don't have anything in their backgrounds that is that horrible, > they are going to be afraid that things will be made up. IMO > > You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But > most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the > President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he > left office. > > I hope that I am wrong on this one. I really do. I guess we will be > finding out soon by seeing who runs. We might just end up with one > person in the running though, Quayle. :( > > Sue -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill :) Here is the one thing that makes me tend to believe Tuckers testimony if he ever has to testify, is knowing there is a clause in his agreement if he is caught lying he voids the plea and will go to jail. That's a pretty big price to pay for lying, and that is something most people are not willing to do. William J. Foristal wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Kathy, > > IMO, the problem is that Starr has had plenty of other witnesses testify > that have been destroyed with respect to credibility after the fact. So > I think the public, rather than thinking something is happening, is > beginning to wonder how credible the next witness will be. > > And trading testimony for leniency on a conviction is probably enough to > destroy the credibility of someone like Tucker. Just as trying to sell > her story for big bucks has destroyed Willey's credibility for many > people. The implication is that a made up story might bring more money > than the truth. > > Bill > > > On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:32:14 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Then I can ask Mac, what if the allegations turn out to be true? > Wouldn't it be best for all concerned to stop the mud slinging on both > sides and lets just deal with the facts? That's my stand on this whole > ordeal. Deal with the facts stop the derogatory tales on both side. > Evenin' Kathy, I agree with you but I'm afraid that pleading is a little late. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Kathy: That same question was asked today on MSNBC. The answer was this whole thing has to play out now, because it has become a political issue, and that is the way politics are. Added to that was that the truth will not come out until it is in a court of law and both sides have a chance to litigate it and find out the truth. Court of law being congress probably. Sounded like a political answer to me. :) Sue > > Then I can ask Mac, what if the allegations turn out to be true? > Wouldn't it be best for all concerned to stop the mud slinging on both > sides and lets just deal with the facts? That's my stand on this whole > ordeal. Deal with the facts stop the derogatory tales on both side. -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Vi: Actually I thought her to be very creditable also. But then I heard tonight, and I am waiting to find out where the information came from, that she has a book deal, or a book already. Don't know which. Seems to me that everyone in this sordid tale has said something one way and then turned around and said it another way. I doubt that we ever will come to find out what the truth is. Besides every time this allegedly happened the only people involved in it were Clinton and the woman involved. And it is always a he said, she said type of thing, so how can anything be proved. Sue > Hi Sue, > > Mrs. Wyler (I think her name is) comes across as so truthful and sincere > on "60 Minutes," I think she will be the one to cook his goose. Even > Hillary won't be able to swallow Willie's pathetic lies as a defense in > this case IMO. These women probably didn't find him that attractive, but > worked for him or went to him for help in obtaining govt. jobs and found > themselves subjected to his crude sexual overtures. > > This particular woman's morality and smarts caused her to reject his > advances, which gives her account of what happened enormous credibility > > Vi Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sue :) And what light does the book deal shed? None I'm aware of. Also concerning it being a he said she said. That is the way sexual harrassment always has been, most people don't try a move when there is an audience to watch. They do it in private. Sue Hartigan wrote: > > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Vi: > > Actually I thought her to be very creditable also. But then I heard > tonight, and I am waiting to find out where the information came from, > that she has a book deal, or a book already. Don't know which. > > Seems to me that everyone in this sordid tale has said something one way > and then turned around and said it another way. I doubt that we ever > will come to find out what the truth is. Besides every time this > allegedly happened the only people involved in it were Clinton and the > woman involved. And it is always a he said, she said type of thing, so > how can anything be proved. > > Sue -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Kathy: I think that if you read what I told Bill you would see that I basically am saying the same thing. There were people in the Simpson trial that were used because they had either written a book (Resnick) or been paid by Hard Copy (Snively) or the Enquirer (the knife brothers). If their testimony had been used perhaps something different would have come of that circus. I was watching Eye to Eye just now, and I don't know anymore about Kathleen Willey than what I saw on 60 Minutes, but it sure looks like a deal where someone is trying hard to discredit her. I do have one question, if everything that these people are saying is true, wouldn't she have known that before she went on 60 Minutes. And knowing that wouldn't she have thought about it quite a bit before she did. I don't know how in the world anyone is going to ever know who lied and who didn't. Not in this mess. IMO Starr's investigation is going to go nowhere. All that is going to come out of it is a big bill for the taxpayers. There are too many people on both sides who are not telling the truth, and there is no way that anyone can ever figure out what is what. That is unless an *eye witness* suddenly jumps out of the bushes. And the way that this thing is going that just might happen. Have you heard anything about the actress from the Highlander show? She supposedly had an affair with Clinton too, and now she is suppose to be before the grand jury, and then there is the model from New York. Does it ever end? Sue > > Hi Sue :) > > And what light does the book deal shed? None I'm aware of. Also > concerning it being a he said she said. That is the way sexual > harrassment always has been, most people don't try a move when there is > an audience to watch. They do it in private. > -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-18 11:56:54 EST, you write: << Does that mean that every woman who accuses someone of sexual harassment is automatically to be believed and awarded some judgment in court? Bill >> If it does, I want my share! I can make up stories with the best of them. I can exaggerate minor events if that's what's needed. Hey, I even live close to DC! Though frankly if I were going to put the squeeze on anyone it would be someone much more wealthy than WC -- maybe Abe Pollin? I'd say Donald Trump, but I don't think he'd care. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-18 15:48:18 EST, you write: << I feel very sorry for anyone who is sexually harassed and does not have the solid evidence to prove it. But I don't think the answer is to simply convict people based on what someone accuses when there is no solid evidence. Bill >> In point of fact, one almost never has solid evidence of an individual act. That may be why the law in its wisdom takes cognizance of the hostile environment thing. You know -- cheesecake pix all over the walls, dirty jokes making the rounds, etc. That can be proven, but an isolated act usually cannot be. Fortunately the law also insists on solid evidence. If that means -- and it almost certainly does -- that some incidents go unpunished, then so be it. IMO that's a lot better than blithely handing out punishments based on nothing more than a verbal accusation (even if the accusation is mine, and is true.) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Bill: Although I do agree with you that no one should be convicted on sexual harassment just because someone accuses them of it. But you do have to admit, there rarely is any hard evidence in cases like this. It usually is a he said she said situation. So then what do you do? I didn't follow the Army sex case, but here was a situation of five women who all said that they were sexually assaulted, harassed, etc. And no one believed them. So what is a woman or a man, in some cases suppose to do. Sue > HI Doc, > > LOL...look for the deep pockets. I feel very sorry for anyone who is > sexually harassed and does not have the solid evidence to prove it. But > I don't think the answer is to simply convict people based on what > someone accuses when there is no solid evidence. > > 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-19 15:21:10 EST, you write: << I didn't follow the Army sex case, but here was a situation of five women who all said that they were sexually assaulted, harassed, etc. And no one believed them. So what is a woman or a man, in some cases suppose to do. Sue >> Sue, I don't think it's necessarily true that no one believed them. A jury cannot convict just because it "believes" something. There must be evidence. And in this, as in most similar cases, the evidence was lacking. (My off the cuff answer to your rhetorical question is, don't get mad, get even.) Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: The man's attorney and the women's attorney were on (I think) it was The Today show the other day. The man's attorney is now saying that he is suing one of the women in a civil court. I don't think he should be doing this, simply because the women's attorney is just hoping and waiting for the opportunity to go after him. :) She said things would be a whole lot different in a civil court as opposed to an army court. I think your advise is great. "Don't get mad, get even." And I think if this guy keeps pushing it he will find out that these women can and will get even. Sue > Sue, I don't think it's necessarily true that no one believed them. A jury > cannot convict just because it "believes" something. There must be evidence. > And in this, as in most similar cases, the evidence was lacking. (My off the > cuff answer to your rhetorical question is, don't get mad, get even.) > 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: [-] >This is another case where I think the truth is somewhere in between... [-] I never saw any of the trial so I can't offer an opinion... >Bill Hi Bill, This is the problem that women reporting sexual attacks always face. The stark truth is typically met with stories based on nothing but pure speculation based only on a unwillingness to believe. There has not been a single refutation of any of Clinton's accusers stories. If there have been I have yet to hear them. They have had supporting information even from their detractors. Clinton, unlike them, has been shown to be a notorious liar and his motives are undeniable. (I realize this was about McKinney's trial and acquittal but I am not as familiar with the case as a whole. The resemblance is unmistakable and has hardly passed notice.) Yet we get the line that "the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween." Such cynicism is worthless in divining the truth. It is not akin to a healthy skepticism which looks for truth without prejudging matters. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >I think it's obvious that this is the kind of prejudice that convinced >our forefathers to institute the innocent until proven guilty phrasing in >the Constitution. Bill, you can hunt and search, you can use a magnifying glass, you can use a computer to search it but nowhere in our Constitution is there any such statement. The prejudice against a raped woman should be understood in this context. The rapist's lawyer always attacks the woman ruthlessly as a promiscuous, vindictive woman. If you go into a case saying every woman who claims to be raped is lying and that there is always another side, then you should most certainly not be permitted on a jury, any jury. My prejudice is for the truth and I deny that every woman asks for it. I have never and will never claim that women do not at times make totally false claims and that the truth may be entirely on the other side. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Sue Hartigan wrote: > I think that if you read what I told Bill you would see that I basically > am saying the same thing. There were people in the Simpson trial that > were used because they had either written a book (Resnick) or been paid > by Hard Copy (Snively) or the Enquirer (the knife brothers). If their > testimony had been used perhaps something different would have come of > that circus. > > I was watching Eye to Eye just now, and I don't know anymore about > Kathleen Willey than what I saw on 60 Minutes, but it sure looks like a > deal where someone is trying hard to discredit her. I do have one > question, if everything that these people are saying is true, wouldn't > she have known that before she went on 60 Minutes. And knowing that > wouldn't she have thought about it quite a bit before she did. > > I don't know how in the world anyone is going to ever know who lied and > who didn't. Not in this mess. > > IMO Starr's investigation is going to go nowhere. All that is going to > come out of it is a big bill for the taxpayers. There are too many > people on both sides who are not telling the truth, and there is no way > that anyone can ever figure out what is what. > > That is unless an *eye witness* suddenly jumps out of the bushes. And > the way that this thing is going that just might happen. > > Have you heard anything about the actress from the Highlander show? She > supposedly had an affair with Clinton too, and now she is suppose to be > before the grand jury, and then there is the model from New York. Does > it ever end? -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. William J. Foristal wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > Hi Kathy, > > Does that mean that every woman who accuses someone of sexual harassment > is automatically to be believed and awarded some judgment in court? > > Bill > > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:57:16 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Hi Sue :) > > > >And what light does the book deal shed? None I'm aware of. Also > >concerning it being a he said she said. That is the way sexual > >harrassment always has been, most people don't try a move when there > >is > >an audience to watch. They do it in private. > > > >Sue Hartigan wrote: > >> > >> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> Hi Vi: > >> > >> Actually I thought her to be very creditable also. But then I heard > >> tonight, and I am waiting to find out where the information came > >from, > >> that she has a book deal, or a book already. Don't know which. > >> > >> Seems to me that everyone in this sordid tale has said something one > >way > >> and then turned around and said it another way. I doubt that we > >ever > >> will come to find out what the truth is. Besides every time this > >> allegedly happened the only people involved in it were Clinton and > >the > >> woman involved. And it is always a he said, she said type of thing, > >so > >> how can anything be proved. > >> > >> Sue > >-- > >Kathy E > >"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and > >tomorrow > >isn't looking too good for you either" > >http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List > >http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories > >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > _ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into > the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea > agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that > there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded > guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at > trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement > in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are > overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. Mornin' Kathy, If there is something then I'm sure it will be used in one form or another against Clinton. That will a matter for the courts or congress. Alot will depend on the evidence and how it holds up under scrutiny. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kathy E wrote: > Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or > female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for > telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in > the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want > to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth > on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven > over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people > for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. Afternoon Kathy, What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Mac: Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Sue > Afternoon Kathy, >What if the accusations turn out to be false? The damage done to the president > and the office of the presidency cannot be erased. > ...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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Kathy: You are right I haven't paid any attention to the Whitewater case. In fact until yesterday I didn't even know that it was still going on. :( As for people looking at the "backside gossip". Yes they are, mainly because this is what is going to either make or break the President. Also nothing else really is being reported. Sex sells. Sue > > It seems your looking at the sexual aspect of the case, I'm looking into > the investigation and illegal acts that were done, if you read the plea > agreement that was just reached btwn Starr and Tucker, it shows that > there is something coming out of this investigation, Tucker pleaded > guilty to one of the charges and has agreed to testify if need be at > trial about his knowledge concerning the Clintons and their involvement > in Whitewater. That tells me something is happening but people are > overlooking that since they are more interested in the backside gossip. > > Sue Hartigan wrote: -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Kathy: We saw this same thing happen with Simpson. Everytime a person came forward to tell what they knew they were attacked and their lives were torn upside down. :( Personally after watching that trial I decided that if given the same circumstances I would keep my mouth shut. And unfortunately that is what the bad guys hope for. (not saying that Clinton is the bad guy) Sue > > No just as it doesn't mean that every person wether they be male or > female should not have to worry about their life being destroyed for > telling what happened to them by someone. That is what is happening in > the Clinton investigations right now, it's no wonder people don't want > to talk. Would you? You can try to be noble and say but I have the truth > on my side, in this case the truth doesn't matter that has been proven > over and over, what does matter is what they will do to destroy people > for no reason but to turn the spotlight off of the accusations. -- 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Mornin' Kathy, > If there is something then I'm sure it will be used in one form or another >against Clinton. That will a matter for the courts or congress. Alot will depend >on the evidence and how it holds up under scrutiny. >...Mac Hi Mac, Don't you think that might depend partly on whether Starr's Republican friends can be surgically removed? Starr has been very solicitous of such concerns in the past. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Mac: > > Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are > going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency > now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside > down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. > > IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, > if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as > it should be again. :( > Afternoon Sue, I agree. Also I feel the media in general has also taken a big hit. What was once considered trash journalism has become the norm. I think the newspaper rack at the check-out line in the supermarkets will and should contain the countries leading newspapers and magazines It shouldn't be long before we start seeing color photos of mutants, aliens, and monkey boys on the front page of all the so called respectable publications. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Mac: I don't know why it surprised me, but it did. The other day I was in the checkouts and there on the Star, Enquirer, and a few others were pictures and stories of Clinton. For some reason it just hit me wrong. The office of the Presidency should hold some kind of respect. But here it is in the same trash that holds the story of some three headed alien that came down and managed to mate with an alligator or something. I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is Quayle But do we really want someone in that office that is sooo perfect that they wouldn't be able to relate to the everyday guy. I don't think I would. Ther has to be a happy medium out there somewhere. Sue > Afternoon Sue, >I agree. Also I feel the media in general has also taken a big hit. What was > once considered trash journalism has become the norm. I think the newspaper > rack at the check-out line in the supermarkets will and should contain the countries > leading newspapers and magazines It shouldn't be long before we start seeing > color photos of mutants, aliens, and monkey boys on the front page of all the so > called respectable publications. > ...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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Mac, > > Don't you think that might depend partly on whether Starr's Republican > friends can be surgically removed? Starr has been very solicitous of such > concerns in the past. Afternoon Terry, From what I understand the House Judiciary Committee headed by Mr. Hyde is well respected by both sides of the aisle. The recent attempt by Newt to create a special select group to have a peak into the investigation by Starr was a blunder IMO, and his talk of impeachment is a tad premature. I'm starting to believe he wants to have impeachment hearings regardless of any evidence to stengthen his parties upcoming elections. I think he blinked and it didn't go unnoticed. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sue Hartigan wrote: > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Mac: > > I don't know why it surprised me, but it did. The other day I was in > the checkouts and there on the Star, Enquirer, and a few others were > pictures and stories of Clinton. > > For some reason it just hit me wrong. The office of the Presidency > should hold some kind of respect. But here it is in the same trash that > holds the story of some three headed alien that came down and managed to > mate with an alligator or something. > > I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the > office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a > monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their > background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is > Quayle > > But do we really want someone in that office that is sooo perfect that > they wouldn't be able to relate to the everyday guy. I don't think I > would. > > Ther has to be a happy medium out there somewhere. > > Sue Afternoon Sue, It's the sexiness of the case that sells. Americans drool over it and the press relishes it. I think if we put anyone under the same microscope as Clinton there would be something there for someone to take issue with. ...Mac Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 12:15:13 EST, you write: << Either way the office of the Presidency has been damaged IMO. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to run for the Presidency now because they aren't going to want to have their lives turned upside down by having their personal lives put under microscopes, etc. IMO the office of the Presidency has been tarnished for years to come, if not forever. And I doubt that it will ever be held in high regard as it should be again. :( Sue >> I can't imagine anyone so simon pure as to have nothing in his/her background that the scandal mongers could use against him/her. That being the case, I think your first PP is right on. Would you want to run, if everything you ever did, said, didn't do, didn't say, etc., was up for grabs? Add to that everything that could be said about you -- perhaps on tape -- between your "friends" and I think my answer would be a resounding no. I hope you're wrong about the office itself, though only time will tell. History does have a few parellels -- presidents accused of scandalous conduct -- and the office has survived. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 14:21:15 EST, you write: << I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is Quayle >> That guy from the monastery would almost certainly have his sexual orientation questioned, Sue. Quayle? No, that's going too far IMO. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: To be absolutely honest even if I were qualified, or even over qualified to be President, and had nothing in my background that could hurt me in the least, I wouldn't run. Especially right now. And that is where we are going to lose good people. Because even if they don't have anything in their backgrounds that is that horrible, they are going to be afraid that things will be made up. IMO You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he left office. I hope that I am wrong on this one. I really do. I guess we will be finding out soon by seeing who runs. We might just end up with one person in the running though, Quayle. :( Sue > I can't imagine anyone so simon pure as to have nothing in his/her background > that the scandal mongers could use against him/her. That being the case, I > think your first PP is right on. Would you want to run, if everything you > ever did, said, didn't do, didn't say, etc., was up for grabs? Add to that > everything that could be said about you -- perhaps on tape -- between your > "friends" and I think my answer would be a resounding no. > > I hope you're wrong about the office itself, though only time will tell. > History does have a few parellels -- presidents accused of scandalous conduct > -- and the office has survived. > > 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: LOL You are certainly on the mark about that. :) I don't know that I would want a perfect person in the WH anyway. It would be very difficult to relate to us mere mortals if he was. IMO Sue > That guy from the monastery would almost certainly have his sexual orientation > questioned, Sue. Quayle? No, that's going too far IMO. > 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 Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ><< I certainly wouldn't want to be the next guy who is running for the > office of President either. Unless this guy came straight out of a > monastery, I can't imagine anyone not having something in their > background that they don't want people to know. Well then there is > Quayle >> >That guy from the monastery would almost certainly have his sexual orientation >questioned, Sue. Think David Souter or Janet Reno. Barbara Mikulski was even subliminally charged. She couldn't deny it without uttering the dread word. >Quayle? No, that's going too far IMO. >Doc Innocent, Sue. Not stupid. There actually have been wonderful candidates with spotless records in recent times though they didn't fare well. Sen. Paul Simon is an easy one. Proxmire. Dukakis was even nominated. They had to claim he was crazy and didn't look good in a tank. He was even accused of being a liberal. It was a canard. The supply of decent people is not so meager that we have to elect degenerates. Some might have noticed that Al Gore is quite clean. He is a nightmare for Republicans who would promise a bleak future for them if they did the right thing and cleaned up the mess in the White House. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-03-21 15:56:55 EST, you write: << You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he left office. >> I didn't so much mean Nixon as Andrew Jackson and people like that, accused of sexual peccadilos and the like. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Re: law-issues-digest V1 #695
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >In a message dated 98-03-21 15:56:55 EST, you write: > ><< You are right the WH has survived scandals before, such as Nixon. But > most of the information that came out of the WH came out after the > President left office. Or it just wasn't made a big deal of until he > left office. >> > >I didn't so much mean Nixon as Andrew Jackson and people like that, accused of >sexual peccadilos and the like. >Doc The most interesting one of all, of course, was Grover Cleveland. He survived the scandal of an illegitimate son. Cleveland told his campaign to answer all questions honestly and fully. That didn't completely occur. There was a secret that was not divulged. Cleveland had his name placed on the birth certificate. The circle of men for whom the woman was providing relief from home and hearth were all married except for Cleveland and in order to preserve domestic tranquility for his friends Cleveland took credit for work that he likely had not accomplished. An intelligent electorate returned Cleveland to the White House after a lapse. All our early presidents were accused of all manner of crimes. They do not seem to me to have been of the dreary quality that so concerns this group. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
