Janice, I haven't heard any of what your saying. I did hear that Susan Wright, the judge in the Jones' case, has in fact from now on forbid the Jones' attorneys from questioning the same witnesses that Starr is attempting to question. It seems that the two legal teams were trying to hound the same witnesses at the same time, perhaps hindering one investigation over the other. Susan bowed to Starr, is all, is how it looked to me.
The "evidence", after all, is now inadmissable.
Janice, if that's true, then that's huge news, and Starr may as well forget about Clinton and focus on Monica's alleged perjury, and the talking points. Could you please provide some source for your info on this bit of surprising news about Clinton's affidavit to the Jones' court now being ruled inadmissible in that court. What were the grounds for the Judge to effectively reverse her own opinion, if that's how it was? Nevertheless, perjury is perjury, and the President has no right to commit perjury in an affidavit to any court. That you, Holly, Surething, and who cares else doesn't care if he did or not does not make him any more above the law than the next guy. It's sad that our President has such a difficult time telling the truth when asked by a court of law.
DK |
