But I never said anything about entrapment, Neocon. Just politics by other means. I'm sure it's all perfectly legal in Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew sues the opposition into bankruptcy, too.
But I do not even admit that the construction you have put on events,such as "planting " the story, is true.
My construction? On the planting business, try Brock, who wrote the story. You sure have a funny attitude for someone so concerned with the "truth". Or maybe the troopers' story was true, and guileless Paula really did want to be Clinton's girlfriend. It's all pretty murky to me. Starr's construction methods there are so vastly superior, aren't they? Maybe putting the screws on Julie Steele will work, or maybe he can get Jane Doe 5 to recant her denial. Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh?
Just because something reasonably could be so doesn't mean that it is, and you have leapt to more than one conclusion.
There were more that a few conclusions jumped to in the obstruction case on Clinton, as I recall. So and so "must have" done these. Lewinsky must have been told to lie by Clinton, despite her denial.
That's your right, but then it is a bit thick to complain about everyone else.
Complaining? I just find it all very interesting, that's all. You get to say Al Gore writes like the Unibomber, and that the anti-Clinton hotheads are like the the Capone strike force in The Untouchables. I just got this one article. But it's all guilt by association, right? Like, Porter was an associate of Smith, who paid the Arkansas troopers to tell their story to Brock, and Porter assuaged Brock about the payments. And being a law partner of Starr does seem to make Porter an associate of sorts. But Starr consulting with Davis openly while Porter quitely worked behind the scenes is purely coincidental. As I said, it's all pretty murky to me. I'm sorry I don't have your crystal vision of right and wrong here. |
