Your first point is clearly wrong, of course.
First, I made that comment before the times piece.
When you wrote, in Message 7457480
Actually, Paula decided to come forward after an allusion to the incident in David Brock's original article on Clinton's abuse of office and reckless behavior in Little Rock. She was not enlisted. Her original attorneys were straightforward litigators. It was only after it became too expensive to support the suit that conservative groups stepped in.
you were responding to
If the way you say it were true, your point would be well taken. They were financed to be on the prowl for dirt on Clinton long before Paula Jones. Read the article again. It wasn't sympathy for Jones that got their interest, they were trolling for dirt and hooked the rumor of her story and proceeded to exploit it. Message 7455919
and the article in question was, of course, the NYT article detailing the role of Starr law partner Porter, among others, in the Paula Jones saga from start to finish, from planting the Arkansas trooper story with Brock through the call to Starr about the Tripp tapes.
If you want the full chain, it goes
Message 7451209 (the story in full)
Message 7455406
(a bland dismissal by Neocon, in one sentence)
Message 7455919
(the challenge to the dismissal I noted above)
Message 7457480
("Guileless Paula Jones and her straightforward litigators).
Don't feel like going through the rest of the points, though. Eventually, we get into Clinton-Capone and all that. I'm sure I'm missing your larger point, of course, but arguing against a list of one sentence assertions is as tiresome as endless insults. |
