To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27304 ) 1/12/1999 2:05:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Read Replies (4) | Respond to
Michelle, you're being so unfair here. In a statement, Barr said that "I've never perjured myself. . . . I am deeply saddened that Larry Flynt's money has been used in an attempt to drive a wedge between the mother and father of two wonderful boys who deserve better than to become involved in the politics of personal destruction." He said he would not add to these efforts "by discussing our personal lives in any way, shape or form with the news media." Barr had warned Flynt in a Dec. 28 letter that publication of such charges would demonstrate "an utter and malicious disregard for the truth." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/flynt011299.htm)could have brought "public disgrace and infamy", but that's just rumor and innuendo. From Barr's attorney. Who would never engage in legal hair splitting. And none of this is relevant. Just as the "youthful indiscretions" of the adulterous papal knight Hyde, beginning at age 41 and going on for 7 years, are irrelevant. But every snippet that Starr can carve out of the mountain of contradictory testimony is relevant. The stuff where the same witnesses said the wrong thing, in terms of Clinton's guilt, they were lying. Only Starr and the rational, impartial, objective Clinton haters here understand.
