[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
:-}
Yes, indeed, that is what she says. She was jailed for contempt of court
for refusing to testify. There is no way anyone can be jailed for refusing
to lie.
>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.
Indeed she said that. And for all I know it could be true. But it still
has nothing whatever to do with her being in jail for contempt of court.
>Now whether this is the truth or not, I don't know, but this is what she
>said.
>
>Sue
You can only be jailed for refusing to testify and that with immunity from
prosecution for anything you might say. Perjury, of course, would still be
prosecutable.
Susan McDougall has refused to testify because she is the one person,
besides Hillary, who can tie Clinton to Whitewater. Nobody gives a damn if
she was one of Clinton's playmates - at least nobody in Starr's office. It
makes not the slightest difference.
The only real question is why doesn't she simply lie about Clinton's
involvement in Whitewater? The answer would appear to be she fears it is so
difficult she would be tied in knots under cross-examination.
>> >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
>
>
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
