Yes, dear, but let me try to type slowly and carefully, and you try to read slowly and carefully, and let's see if you can understand what I'm trying to say.
Larry Klayman has accused Vice-President Cheney of doing bad things. Right now, there is little or no evidence that Klayman is right, and there is some evidence that Cheney is innocent of Klayman's charges. Keep this in mind.
The charges will affect Cheney's reputation in the eyes of some people, just because the major media is reporting them. So it's possible that a good man's reputation is being tarnished, even though right now there is no evidence he did anything wrong. Some people will always believe he did, even if it's later proven that he didn't.
If the lawsuit continues, it will have to be fought in court. Halliburton and Cheney are probably having to pay lawyers now, and certainly will have to later. So it's not only damaging their reputation, it's damaging them financially.
If Halliburton is damaged financially, so will innocent stockholders be damaged - even if Larry's lawsuit isn't true. The stockholders are not all rich people.
Do you think it's right that all of these people might be hurt, are being hurt now, when all of the currently available evidence shows that there is no basis for this lawsuit?
Do you think it's fair to damage someone's reputation, just because you might find they did something wrong? Shouldn't you have a pretty good idea there is wrongdoing before you do something like that?
Gee, usually lawyers to not lay their case out publically before the initial hearing or trial occurs. <pDo you know of any lawyers that do?
Well there you go trying to making sense again ...
Baaaaaad Amelia