[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If this whole thing goes down the tubes would Susan McDougal have any
>grounds for a law suit. She was held in jail for refusing to say what
>Starr wanted her to say,
Totally untrue. This is nonsense. Susan McDougal could have opened the
cell doors at any time she wanted. All she needed to do was agree to
testify - and do so.
She claimed that testifying truthfully would open her to charges of perjury.
But perjury, like any other charges, have to be proven. She was willing to
spend 18 months under horrible conditions to avoid a perjury conviction (for
telling the truth yet) that would like entail no jail time? Make sense to you?
Susan McDougal was caught between Starr and Clinton. Either Clinton had
offered her inducements or she was frightened of implicating him. You tell
me what other possible reason there was for her actions.
although she did say over and over that she
>didn't know of any wrong doing.
>
>I know I am stretching with this but I was just wondering. :)
>
>Sue
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
