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 depar
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 any
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 h
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 thin
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
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 i
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 re
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 yo
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 bei
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
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 somet
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.
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
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
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 as
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: Trip
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
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,
>
>
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,
>
[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
[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 woul
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
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
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 o
[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
[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 brea
[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 c
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 PR
[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
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 a
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 Ja
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 testif
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.
>
> B
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 conside
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 someon
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
o
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 th
[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 Republ
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 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 thi
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, an
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 mat
[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
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
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 ru
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
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 s
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
[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 1
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 w
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
Subscr
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
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
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]
I
[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
[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
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
peop
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
58 matches
Mail list logo
