I knew guys who made up quite elaborate sexual adventures for themselves, which they recounted straight-faced to their buddies. None of it, of course, was true.
A couple things: First, I think we would both agree that without hearing the tapes for ourselves, it's difficult to reach a firm conclusion in re their veracity. For example, I've heard the clip where Clinton supposedly tells G. Flowers to go ahead and deny the relationship, and I wasn't very impressed: Poor quality, didn't even sound convincingly like Clinton's voice. Further, the short, choppy, poor quality threw open the possibility that it was edited. If that clip was presented in some trial, and I on the jury, that bit of evidence would be placed on the "certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt" stack. I would be looking for other evidence or testimony. With this in mind, I don't see how anyone here can speak with great conviction on the Lewinksy tapes, pro or con. The flip-side is that the tapes may be clear as a bell, with Lewinsky's voice filled with genuine fear, anger, dismay, smugness, whatever. They may be very convincing, and they may not be at all.
So where does that leave us, besides debating whether or not people can be delusional, such as Her account of what he supposedly said and what he supposedly did was quite circumstantial. This went on for some time, until the guy became nervous enough that he asked her to find another doctor. She was in my opinion a whacko, but scarcely a multiple personality.
I have some limited knowledge of the courts. Three of my brothers have, to different extents, had schooling and/or work(ed) in the law enforcement field). In a court of law, sometimes circumstantial evidence is all there is. Sometimes there are no witnesses, etc. But a jury does not need to have any of that. All they need is to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. So it doesn't help to talk about circumstantial evidence.
re And if indeed Monica spoke ONLY of that, it'd make me wonder...
Obviously you are suspicious of every word she utters. I also easily believe that Monica could indeed have all sorts of character issues that may not make her appear very to be a very trustworthy witness. We all have a right to our biases, but I suggest that, not being on the Grand Jury, we are all grasping at straws to figure out what's going on back in Wash. D.C. I wish we knew more. |
