Posted on 10/08/2001 8:28:01 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
That's your prerogative not to take her word for it, for whatever reason (because she's well-coiffed? or what?). I still don't see that as a reason to take the see-no-evil/hear-no-evil view that "I don't want to hear about such things in the first place". How exactly can you proudly display this honorable skepticism of yours if you never hear the stories you doubt in the first place?
As for myself: I'll admit, between the word of Clinton or a Clinton flunkie, and some randomly-chosen person, I'll take the word of the randomly-chosen person.
Of course, this might be moot. Did Clinton or his flunkies even deny the threat, or rather did they just challenge the court proceeding with a flurry of briefs and an army of wing-tips, without denying the actual story? It would be rather strange if you are here to say "I believe the word of Clinton over the word of that broad" if Clinton doesn't even deny the broad's story.
I mean, heck, that would be ridiculous.
In any event, had not JW brought the story to light, it seems that we wouldn't even know about this charge - true or not - to begin with.
And you would prefer it that way: to remain in ignorance. Is that what you're saying? Please, just say so if that's the case, so we can end this conversation.
Which part do you think is false?
I am just wondering because the more I research her story the less I can understand why you are so vehemently against it, and why you are so insistent about how "not credible" she is.
I mean: she doesn't actually claim all that much to begin with. (As compared with Ms. Broaddrick, for example....) So I don't get it - what exactly is there to "doubt" about her?
Is it just because she's well-coiffed and went on TV, and therefore you dislike her? Is that it?
I don't care about her being well-coiffed; its just proof she wasn't destroyed. Its America; people can say anything especially about public figures but the rest of us have to sort the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, Klayman's taking up this woman's issue - whatever it is or was - is a reason for me not to support his organization because he's wasting time, money, effort and the public's attention on silly complaints. Just because its a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it worthy.
You tell me. You're the one who 1. "finds her not credible", and 2. is angry at Judicial Watch for representing her for whatever claims she had.
I assume this means you're familiar with the lawsuit. I mean: how on earth could you be angry at Judicial Watch for bringing legal action if you didn't know what that legal action was? That would just be nutty: "I don't know what this case was about but you should never have brought it up!"
So, I'll say it again: you tell me.
What was the gist of her confusing TV appearances?
That you apparently found her TV appearances "confusing" is an autobiographical fact and not relevant to this discussion of Judicial Watch.
What was the legal rationale according to Klayman?
You tell me. You're the one who seems to have a huge problem with it.
I don't care about her being well-coiffed; its just proof she wasn't destroyed.
Irrelevant to a claim of whether she was threatened. What it does prove, however, is that you pay no small amount of attention to how "coiffed" a woman is.
In my opinion, Klayman's taking up this woman's issue - whatever it is or was - is a reason for me not to support his organization because he's wasting time, money, effort and the public's attention on silly complaints.
But how do you know it's such a "silly complaint", given that you don't know what the suit was about, you don't know the legal rationale, and you even found her TV appearances "confusing"? Maybe the problem here is that you need to do a little research and not be so quick to judge.
Why don't you just come clean here: Are you a Clinton worshipper, who thinks that every legal action against him was just horrible, no matter what? If so, just admit it; it's ok with me. It's just that it would explain a lot of things for me, and I could stop bugging you :)
Just because its a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it worthy.
And, just because it's a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it not worthy.
Interesting that you couldn't answer my question (Which part [of her story] do you think is false?). Was this merely an oversight on your part? Let me know,
Did I say he did? Saying that, he did have a couple of White House and EPA cases concerning Email obstruction that should of went somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.