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 they are going to toss her in jail. That would
really make the US look like some kind of fools to the world. I can't
even imagine them doing that.
Can Starr reopen everything once the President leaves office? If they
are really serious about all of this, and have the evidence to throw
Hillary into jail, that would be the time to do it, not while Clinton is
President, IMO.
Did you watch the press conference this morning? Danielson wouldn't let
the Prez off easily with the Monica questions. LOL But Clinton kept
his cool and told him he wouldn't talk about it.
Sue
> HI Sue,
>
> Yeah, I agree with the pundits who are saying that he'd have to have a
> slam dunk case against the First Lady before he'd indict her. Can a
> Grand Jury indict on its own? Or do they simply recommend an indictment
> and it's up to the prosecutor to bring the indictment against a
> defendant?
>
> I see that they are playing the 5 hour tape of Hillary's testimony to the
> Grand Jury today. The Grand Jury's term expires a week from tomorrow.
>
> 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
