[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
INteresting information coming out about the Hubbell tapes. That whole
fiasco is ridiculous, IMO. And Burton has really made an ass out of
himself.
I haven't heard Bill Clinton's name being mentioned much with respect to
Whitewater any
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I put the Hubbal tapes on here that I heard last night. They are really
something.
I have noticed in all of this stuff that I hear, read, and find on the
web about Whitewater that it is always Hillary that they are talking
about. Never Clinton
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I don't know if they actual indict or they just recommend it. It is my
guess that they actual indict.
Hillary evoked privilege during her testimony this time. But it was
spousal privilege, which makes perfect sense to me.
There is no way that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
She has gone on record as offering to give her testimony in forums other
than the Grand Jury as long as Starr was not involved. I guess Starr
figured he may as well question Hillary Clinton again. At least she'll
answer his questions.
[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
How do you
I don't answer questions in this forum from those who only indulge in
personal attacks. Should you ever decide to clean yourself up and lay off
the stuff then we can talk.
If you wish to indulge to silly
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
Well Starr has less than two weeks left, and then he is going to either
have to do something or let the whole thing go.
I doubt very much that Hillary will be indicted though. I just can't
see that happening.
Sue
Hi Sue,
She has gone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:04:42 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
How do you
I don't answer questions in this forum from those who only indulge in
personal attacks.
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
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi terry:
Ok Now I see what you mean about the felony witnesses. :)
As for McDougal. To be honest I still don't think her testimony would
be taken seriously by anyone at this point. No matter what she had to
say (unless it was backed up by hard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Perhaps if we knew the entire story about how Ken Starr and his henchmen
have conducted the investigation with her we would understand why she
refuses to testify before a Grand Jury that they are running. A witness
at a Grand Jury does
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I certainly would like to know the whole story. I wonder if we ever
will. Somehow I doubt it. :(
I just know that most people would not go through what she is going
through because of loyalty to a friend. Especially when that friend has
shown
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Clinton haters seem to be missing an important point here. If she
was really intent on helping Clinton cover up his guilt then all she has
to do is testify and lie about Clinton's involvement.
But she can not do that, because she knows that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:57:36 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Clinton haters seem to be missing an important point here. If she
was really intent on helping Clinton cover up his guilt
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
Her lawyer issued a statement this morning saying that if a
congressional hearing is called she will testify. Or if another
prosecutor is put in place she will testify.
I just felt like she was telling the truth when I heard her in that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Sue,
I find it amazing how some people have become so two faced about this.
People who have spoken out quite strongly about the rights of defendants
and the overbearing power of the authorities now sing a different tune
when it comes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Only the clever ones. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. VBG
Bill
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:52 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
Think they will ever track down all 100 million of us secret
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I don't know who is using, or why, Susan McDougal is being used, but I
believed her in that interview. She has stuck to her story since day
one, despite the fact that she could have saved herself from hell, like
others have done, by doing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue,
Think they will ever track down all 100 million of us secret conspirators?
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SUSAN MCDOUGAL IMPLICATES NEW YORK TIMES IN WHITEWATER BRIBERY
SCHEME
Claims Husband was Paid to Talk to Jeff Gerth in '92
Monday night
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Terry:
That is one of the reasons that I believe her. If she got on the stand
and said whatever it is that is the truth, and they threw her in jail
for perjury it would be easier. But she just went through hell, rather
than to get on the stand and
20 matches
Mail list logo
