\El"o*quence\, n. [F. ['e]loquence, L. eloquentia, fr. eloquens. See Eloquent.] 1. Fluent, forcible, elegant, and persuasive speech in public; the power of expressing strong emotions in striking and appropriate language either spoken or written, thereby producing conviction or persuasion.
Since when is "Huh?" eloquent?
Since when does quoting from an official transcript constitute white washing?
You say: "The senator had the authority to really clear this up. He could have started by calling the dogs off of Jim and Liz Sanders. Why go ballistic and start jailing people over a mear snippet of vinyl....freakking incredible...don't you agree???!!!"
Mr. DUNCAN: What I am wondering about is, I noticed in the material that you submitted to us that you were a consultant to the Sanders and their lawyer or lawyers. What I am wondering about is how-why do you feel they were convicted? I am sure that all of these questions that you have raised--
Commander DONALDSON: They were guilty. That is my point. They were guilty of the fact that they actually had these small two and three square inch pieces of fabric. Source
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:26:05 -0400
Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
From: Ian Goddard igoddard@EROLS.COM
Subject: Getting over TWA 800
[excerpt]
[quote]
Breaching the security of a criminal investigation, which all FBI investigations are, is a matter of National Security by definition.
Did Sanders illegally acquire evidence? Yes.
Did someone illegally give him evidence? Yes.
Is it the role of the govt to enforce law? Yes.
Because the answer to all those questions is "yes," the fact that the govt is pursuing violations of law proves only that the govt is guilty of enforcing laws.
The situation presents zero evidence of illicit cover-up and should not be measured as evidence of anything except that the govt is doing its stated job. If the FBI does not go after the violation, that would be derelict.
[end quote]