Last Post, I Swear Under Oath
Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:13:06 EDT

In a message dated 98-09-13 14:18:01 EDT, a wild and crazy guy writes this:

Wrong. They gave him their best advice based on the definitions set forth in
the Paula Jones case (which everyone seems to be forgetting was thrown out for
being without merit), with consideration of their clients interest.


AND based on what Clinton told them happened. No way would his attorneys
construe Clinton's actions with Monica as not sex, even in the narrow Jones'
case legal definition. That's what the Starr report/referral proves as well.

(Whether or not the Jones case was thrown out - for any reason - is absolutely
immaterial. Ipso facto. )

Three Scenarios:
1) Clinton lied to his attorneys = Clinton is guilty of Perjury
2) His attys knew what happened and misadvised him = They are guilty but
Clinton is looking at impeachment procedings where loopholing won't serve him.
3) Clinton disregarded his attys' legal advice but because he has damning
files on them they are afraid to speak up. (Joking, I think)

What cracks me up: our President is playing fast and loose with the law and
everyone seems to be forgetting that. When strict legal interpretations might
serve him, he & his attys use them. When they don't (such as the materiality
of the sex questions in the Jones case and the immateriality of the fact that
the case was thrown out) they completely disregard them, mock them, and even
publicly mis-state them. His apologists do the same thing, and probably even
admire him for it.

I'm not posting any more on this subject, not because it's not of extreme
importance to me but because nobody wants to hear it.

Double G