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
interview.
I really don't know why she would not testify and take her chances
unless she has been threatened by one side or the other, or something
along those lines. But she definitely is sticking to her convictions.
I just can't see where she has anything to gain herself by not
testifying.
Sue
> HI Sue,
>
> 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. This is just as
> plausible as the Clinton haters' theory that if Clinton is innocent all
> she has to do is testify and tell the truth.
>
> So the question is, which of these two scenarios would prompt someone to
> go through the hell that McDougal has gone through to avoid testifying.
> As Terry pointed out, even if she perjured herself and was caught at it,
> the penalty would not be as bad as what she is already receiving.
>
> Anyway, she has said that she would gladly testify on the day when Starr
> resigns or is replaced as special prosecutor. I think that's the most
> important clue as to what her concerns are. People caught up in the
> Spanish Inquisition had no choice. It seems that, even though she is
> thrown into jail for it, Susan McDougal does have a choice.
>
> Bill
--
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
