[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Jackie is correct in that Susan McDougal has nothing to do with the Paula
Jones case. Starr wanted her to corroborate testimony from her
ex-husband that Clinton was aware of the illegal loan and that he was
involved in illegal activities. They also wanted her to say she had sex
with Clinton.
McDougal's claim is that Starr and others wanted her to tell the story as
THEY believed the truth of the matter, and if she did so she would get
special treatment just like her ex-husband, David Hale and others. She
says THAT would be perjury. But she also knew that with the clever and
persistent questioning that Starr and his cronies could put together,
that if she did not testify to the story they wanted her to tell, they
could confuse her and trip her up on details of the truth that would make
it appear as if she committed perjury. So it was a Catch 22 for her.
She could either lie and tell THEIR story, or tell the truth and have
them go after her with the same zeal they have gone after Clinton.
I think it's interesting to note that she was asked if she would ever
agree to testify before the Grand Jury on this matter. She said yes.
She would testify the day after Starr resigns as special prosecutor.
That says a lot.
Also interesting will the the spin that others will put on this. Some
people who talk an awful lot about how the terrible prosecutors in other
cases beat up on witnesses and defendants to prevent the truth from
coming out will now talk about how all Susan McDougal has to do is tell
the truth. People can be so transparent when their glaring prejudices
rear their ugly heads.
Bill
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 14:49:38 -0700 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi Jackie:
>
>I don't think she did have anything to do with Paula Jones or any of
>the
>other cases, but they seem to be all intertwined in a way, although
>they
>are separate. Maybe I just feel that way because the same prosecutor
>is
>in charge of them all.
>
>I'm glad you saw that interview too, as it isn't on the web any
>longer.
>:)
>
>Sue
>>
>> Hi Terry
>>
>> Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I don't know where
>you got your
>> information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was
>to tell the
>> story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to
>testify the way
>> he wanted.
>>
>> She said if she did that and testified the way Starr wanted the
>story that she
>> would be open to perjury, not open to perjury for telling the truth.
>>
>> Hi Sue: I don't think Susan can do anything as she was a witness
>for Whitewater, I
>> think. Did she have anything to do with the Paula Jones fiasco?
>>
>> jackief
>
>--
>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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
