Bob, I'm not saying that a video would in itself sway me. What I'm saying is that the Clinton administration is screaming like a stuck pig at each bit of telling evidence that comes out. They act guilty any way you measure it. So that's where I start with my hunch that yes, the tapes are real. If they aren't real, don't you think Monica would have said so by now?
Look for some more clues, Cluso: Who has the most to gain by "leaking" tidbits from testimony? Starr has nothing to gain. The Clintons do, so as to lessen the impact of it once it comes out. They don't want all the damaging testimony to come out all at once, because the slam effect might be enough to turn the people against them. Whereas if they (the Clinton lawyers, who do have access to testimony) leak a little bit at a time, the public gets the "dribble effect", which they can shrug off, plus the repeated leaks tend to jade people and make them cynical about the whole thing.
Fact: One person providing info to a major news agency recently said (I think it was Monday morning Feb 9th) that some recent leak came "from sources close to the President's defense team". This person stated this on a morning news show.
Regarding Starr having represented Big Tobacco; who cares? Everybody has a job that they get paid for, right? Bill Bennett, Kendall, and the rest of Clinton's legal team aren't exactly working for free because they're such loyal Clintonites are they?
Guess who wrote the Independent counsel law? The Clinton administration. Possibly they hoped to use independent counsels to damage opponents. A Clinton administration person said recently "The independent counsel law is turning into something way different than what we thought". I guess they never thought that Janet Reno would actually do her job.
DK |
