[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
How do you know that Starr has evidence that would impeach Susan
McDougal? Another very irresponsible statement, IMO.
Best,
Bill
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:00:49 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Hi Sue,
>
>It is up to the jury to evaluate any witness. The great majority of
>people
>in the witness protection program are criminals themselves, convicted
>or
>not. Some who were not and left the program despite the threat to
>their
>personal security complained bitterly of their treatment as criminals.
>
>The reason Susan McDougal did not just go before the grand jury and
>lie for
>Clinton is that Starr has evidence that would impeach her. That is,
>of
>course, the source of the nonsensical claim that she was willing to go
>to
>jail to avoid having to go to jail. It is amazing that adults of
>reasonable
>intelligence can swallow such stuff.
>
>I can understand why a prosecutor might not put on minor and
>unnecessary
>witnesses as apparently happened in your jury duty when he found out
>the
>witnesses were convicted felons. Naturally a prosecutor would prefer
>only
>the most innocent and chaste of witnesses but they are not always
>available
>and are most unlikely as witnesses to conspiracy.
>
>>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>Hi Terry:
>>
>>I can understand what you are saying, but I thought that if a person
>was
>>a convicted felon their testimony wasn't considered any good (or
>>something to that effect). When I was on jury duty a couple of the
>so
>>called witnesses were excused because they had a felony record.
>>
>>Sue
>>> I doubt there have been many, if any, mob leaders or druglords that
>have
>>> been convicted without the testimony of fellow mobsters. Starr's
>methods of
>>> going up the chain of conspirators is the natural progression of
>conviction
>>> by all prosecutors in such cases. The unwillingness of such
>witnesses to
>>> testify is what keeps the mob bosses out of jail just as it is
>doing with
>>> the Clintons so far.
>>>
>>> Susan McDougal herself was convicted largely by the testimony of
>David Hale,
>>> who was a convicted perjurer. Naturally such testimony has to be
>backed by
>>> reasonable evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
