[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
The big issue is the kind of immunity she will get. I think Starr will
gladly give her use immunity, but Ginsberg wants total immunity for her.
This thing is going to drag out for a long time, IMO. Ginsberg can
appeal the judge's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Now you see the key point in this debate. The assumption that she refuses
to testify in order to cover up for Clinton is not reasonable.
Bill
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:22:25 -0700 Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Sue Hartigan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Yep, and the Clinton haters can't stand it. If Starr had evidence to
impeach McDougal's testimony then he wouldn't need her testimony, would
he? He wants to force her to lie and implicate Clinton because he has NO
evidence to do this on
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill:
I bet that there ends up being a whole library of books that come out of
this mess. And the one book that everyone will be waiting for is one
from Hillary. (she won't write one though)
Susan McDougal won't be made to testify again, IMO. Starr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:22:58 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No Terry
I believe she said she went to jail *rather* than to testify the way
Starr
wanted
her to. Jackie
Today when she
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:38:21 -0500 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
As usual, your perception of issues transcends the bias and
prejudice of
others.
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
Exactly! Using their own logic it is obvious that Susan McDougal's
refusal to testify is more indicative of Clinton's innocence than his
guilt.
Bill
Hi Bill
I forget not all of us have that clear,
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. She is serving time for her Whitewater conviction. Her trial for
embezzlement is pending. And she is going to jail for contempt of court.
Unless you think she is a masochist she is obviously hiding something - to
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am a little puzzled here. I don't think that her refusal to testify
necessarily
implies she is hiding something, nor that she is a masochist. Isn't that
rather a
leap in logic??
This only shows a lack of logic on your part. Whether Clinton is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Once again, you are correct. She completed her 18 month sentence on the
contempt of court ruling and is now serving the sentence for the crime
she was convicted of.
If she really is keeping quiet to protect Clinton one might wonder why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:33:44 -0500 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. She is serving time for her Whitewater conviction. Her trial
for
embezzlement is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:22:34 -0700 "Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am a little puzzled here. I don't think that her refusal to testify
necessarily
implies she is hiding something, nor that she
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. If he is not guilty, however, he does not need to take any
chances with public sentiment and opinion that might be turned against
him if he issues a pardon to McDougal.
Bill
Now you got me ROTFLMAO, because you just stuck your foot in your mouth with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
HI Sue,
Excellent questions. She's not going to be hurting for money because she
can sell her story as a book and probably a movie. I think that there
will be a lot more information coming out about Mr. Starr and his
investigating tactics with
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No Terry
I believe she said she went to jail *rather* than to testify the way Starr
wanted
her to. Jackie
Today when she again refused to testify, and faces even harsher penalties,
she stated or her attorney stated, "Susan McDougal does not believe in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
Susan McDougal is truly unique.
Reporters have gone to prison rather than reveal sources to a grand jury.
People with knowledge of a crime have refused to testify under immunity in
fear of their lives or that of their family. All those were afraid to tell
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
As usual, your perception of issues transcends the bias and prejudice of
others. :) Clearly it seems that if McDougal was refusing to answer
questions in order to hide Clinton's guilt, then Clinton would
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key Whitewater witness David Hale goes on trial
in Arkansas today
after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas refused to block the state
from pursuing charges of
lying to insurance regulators against him.
Hale goes on trial in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hale argued a plea agreement and immunity granted to him by Whitewater
prosecutors in 1994 should protect him in the state case. He also claimed
the case was political payback by his opponents for his cooperation with
independent
19 matches
Mail list logo
