[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 (4/20) on the Charles Grodin Show, proponents of the "Vast
>Right Wing
>Conspiracy" theory finally overplayed their hand - bigtime. In a taped
>interview with a Grodin
>staffer, Whitewater convict Susan McDougal alleged that her husband, Jim
>McDougal, was paid -
>and possibly promised a job - for an interview with New York Times
>reporter Jeff Gerth, who
>broke the Whitewater story in March 1992 largely based on Mr. McDougal's
>account.
>
>She leveled the bribery charge as her lawyer, Mark Geragos, along with
>fellow Grodin guests Gene
>Lyons, John Fund and Gil Davis, explored the allegations that another
>key Whitewater witness,
>David Hale, was also paid to tell prosecutors what he knew about
>Whitewater. Mrs. McDougal
>and Geragos hope those allegations taint Hale enough to win her a new
>trial. And the parallel
>charges implicating Jim McDougal and The New York Times appear to be an
>attempt to illustrate
>just how "vast" the conspiracy to destroy Bill Clinton really was. Mrs.
>McDougal debuted her
>explosive and bizarre allegations early in the Grodin program, when
>asked about the origins of the
>Whitewater scandal. She explained:
>
>"I first knew that there was an issue when I was visiting my ex-husband
>(Jim McDougal) and he told
>me that he was going to meet with Jeff Gerth of The New York Times. And
>he was very ebullient
>that day and excited about it. And he made me understand that there was
>something in it for him. He
>was getting something out of this interview; money and the possibility
>of a job or something. And he
>said 'I might need you to come in and back me up but I'm going to try to
>keep you out of it if I
>can.'
>
>Well, from that interview with The New York Times - that Jim was clearly
>motivated to say certain
>things - grew Whitewater. And from my perspective Whitewater just never
>existed. I knew about
>that business deal; the small land deal in Northern Arkansas. I'd been
>there. I'd talked to the
>Clintons about it. I'd talked to Jim about it. And I never knew anything
>that was remotely illegal
>about that. So, to tell you the truth - I am as puzzled about how they
>decided to go after
>Whitewater as anybody else. Except I know that the very first story,
>from the very beginning, was
>not true. And I know that when Jim told that story, he was being paid -
>or motivated in some way
>to tell it." Of the allegations that David Hale's Whitewater story was
>paid for, The New York Times
>has said the charge is serious enough to merit a thorough official
>investigation, even though the
>supporting evidence is "scant". Susan McDougal's allegation that the
>Times was a party to a
>scheme to bribe the very man whose tale launched the Whitewater scandal,
>Jim McDougal, would
>seem to be far more serious than the allegations against Mr. Hale,
>especially since it taints the
>Times' own reportage. And though Susan McDougal may be a proven liar and
>convicted felon
>awaiting trial on seperate embezzlement charges, she does seem to have
>established herself as a
>credible source in the eyes of the mainstream press, given the fact that
>they never tire of interviewing
>her.
>
>Will the New York Times call for Janet Reno or Ken Starr to investigate
>this time?
>--
>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
