Re Sorry, but "innocent until proved guilty", last I heard... Don't be sorry, because of course in a legal sense, and in view of the court, both Clinton and Monica are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
So Janet Reno has apparently decided that, in the course of upholding law, truth, and justice, that the conflicting pieces of evidence that Starr possesses warrants further investigation. That's all this is about. It's not about whether or not Starr deserves a popularity prize for being such a nice guy. Since when were cops always nice in the first place?
Re Sure it's "evidence", but of what? Of the fact that Monica runs off at the mouth, but not of much else.
We can hardly go making judgements about what evidence Starr has or does not have. Monica's mother didn't seem exactly jubilant after departing Starr's investigative chambers.
Re Haven't you ever known women (and men) who make things up? This is a possibility well worth considering.
Not for me to consider. Janice, don't put me on the Starr grand jury when I haven't had the benefit of the testimony and evidence presented so far. I'm not going to make one tiny assumption about Monica Lewinsky, other than she looks like she's eaten a few too many twinkies. Yes that's twinkies, not anything else, not one time, not ever. -GG-
DK |
