Janice, again in re >Sure it's "evidence", but of what? Of the fact that [xxx--edited out--xxx] runs off at the mouth, but not of much else. Haven't you ever known women (and men) who make things up? This is a possibility well worth considering. I've known 'em, and they tend to be very, very convincing. When challenged, they'll say anything that pops into their tiny heads, hoping it'll serve.
And we're not talking about "appearance of impropriety"; we're talking about "appearance of guilt" with reference to a criminal case.<
Sure I've known and do know liers, who appear to quite able of believing their own lies. Not that such lies have fooled me forever. Sometimes there's cooberating testimony which reveals things as lies.
Do you suppose Hillary Rodam was using your above arguments while she was serving on the legal team investigating Nixon, when considering the appropriateness of using the Nixon tapes as core evidence of his knowledge of the Watergate break-in? And certainly there should be cooberating testimony, and more evidence, if possible. But a defendent/target's own words would seem to be important evidence, particularly when such words and conversations appear not only very copious in quantity, but incriminating as well. For any IC to dismiss out of hand such evidence would, in my view, be a gross miscarriage of justice. Then again, a Democratic Congressman was in recent years let off of some charges with the acceptance of the idea that he lied to his own diary. So, I'm not saying Monica won't slither out of this. I'm sure she'll come out of it smelling like a million dollars.
DK |
