Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I heard her myself not more than a month or so ago in an interview say
that she would not testify because she would not say what Starr wanted
her to say.
She also said that her husband came to her and told her that if she said
that she had sex with Clinton that they would give her a deal. The
interview was on Dateline. I will see if they still have it on the web.
Now whether this is the truth or not, I don't know, but this is what she
said.
Sue
>
> 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
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
