[Do You Remember When?] Susan McDougal Indicted

AP via Free Republic ^ | 5/4/98 | Originally posted by Lindsey

[Support Free Republic]

---

---

Topic: White Water

Susan McDougal Indicted

AP
Not for commercial use.

The indictment, handed down by a grand jury here that is completing its last week of work, charged Mrs. McDougal with two counts of criminal contempt of court and one count of obstruction of justice.

The charges come nearly two years after she first refused to testify before a federal grand jury after being convicted by a jury on fraud charges related to the failed savings and loan at the center of the original Whitewater investigation.

Copyright 1998 AP News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---

Posted by: Lindsey () *
05/04/98 16:44:01 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
She must really like it behind bars.
From: Marcellus () *
05/04/98 16:46:21 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Now, just for fun, Starr will indict everyone else who was called before the Arkansas Grand Jury under the seldom used "guilt by association" law.
From: OldAtlanta (OldAtlanta@aol.com) *
05/04/98 16:47:40 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Bend over, Susan, and take it like a man.
From: Bush2000 (emailname) *
05/04/98 16:48:15 EDT

---

To: Marcellus
"She must really like it behind bars!"

It's O.K. - she gets those conjugal visits from Hillary.

No mention in the above about how much time she faces if convicted on all counts.

Anyone?

Michael
From: Wright is right! (voe@telalink.net) *
05/04/98 16:50:37 EDT

---

To: Marcellus
It,s the orange jump suit that she likes so much, she is really attractive in it
From: zap_bill () *
05/04/98 16:51:41 EDT

---

To: Wright is right!
She faces about a year in jail. Figure she goes in to jail in a year, and then slick pardons her in January 2001.
From: Jim B. () *
05/04/98 16:52:23 EDT

---

To: OldAtlanta
This is very bad for Hillary. These indictments demonstrate that the LRGJ sees a large conspiracy to violate laws, obstruct justice, profit from crimnal acts, etc.
If they can reach to Susan McDougal for something way beyond just simple failure to testify, they have no fear of going where the evidence takes them... and that means trouble, trouble in River City for Hillary!
From: Wade the News Consultant (speakers@iag.net) *
05/04/98 16:53:25 EDT

---

To: lawyer-types
How much time will Susan get for obstruction of justice?
From: Jim B. () *
05/04/98 16:54:01 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Susan is SCARED !!! It is safer to be in jail, behind bars, than out in the world where Clinton's kamikazes would kill her.
From: Kay (emailname) *
05/04/98 17:04:37 EDT

---

To: Kay
I seem to remember an article by some reporter with a source "close to the investigation" who said that Judge Wright has ruled out her being charged with criminal contempt.

The thing I find interesting here is that the GJ was very active in asking questions concerning Susie's silence, according to her lawyer and family.

Sounds like they didn't like her BS answers any better than Starr's people did.
From: Keith () *
05/04/98 17:12:12 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Klinton was asked by the OIC to urge Susie to cooperate and he refused. This is Ken Starrs way of giving Klinton one last chance to come clean before the whip comes down. String 'em all up by their Buster Browns!
From: PRoeder277 (emailname) *
05/04/98 17:14:04 EDT

---

To: Jim B.
I think that each count of criminal contempt is a year, but I thought that the obstruction of justice was something like five years. Being a felon already, she will not be shown much by way of leniency in sentencing. Could even get consecutive (here's hoping) sentences.
From: sitetest () *
05/04/98 17:16:31 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
CHECK OUT HER SWISS BANK ACCOUNT!!!

I would guess that she'll stay in jail for about ~$2 million.
From: Bob D. (demaria@voicenet.com) *
05/04/98 17:24:11 EDT

---

To: sitetest
Starr's rep. stated that the obstruction charge carried up to 10 years, I didn't hear all of it but he did say that the sentance for criminal contempt is indeterminate. Some time back it was said that she would get at least 5 years for criminal contempt, I don't know what the sorce of that was.
From: dalereed (dalereed@ixpres.com) *
05/04/98 17:29:11 EDT

---

To: Kay
I demand an autopsy for Susan and Webb. Lets get ahead of the game this time.
From: Howard V. (hwest@greenheart.com) *
05/04/98 17:32:06 EDT

---

To: Jim B.
Also, can Three Strikes kick in???
From: BobS (bobusa@earthlink.net) *
05/04/98 17:32:26 EDT

---

To: dalereed
10 years for obstruction of justice! My! Sounds good to me!

A number of years ago, a doctor in the Washington, DC kidnapped her daughter and had her hidden away from her ex-husband, who, she stated, was molesting their daughter. Rather than answer where her daughter was, she was sent to jail for contempt. After remaining there for some time (well over a year or so), Congress passed a law stating that after a certain term of civil contempt had been served, that the accused must be tried for criminal contempt, which would yield a maximum sentence, which I believe was a year. But, I'm just gathering stray synapses to remember even this much.
From: sitetest () *
05/04/98 17:35:18 EDT

---

To: Howard V.
On the other thread "Susan McDougal indicted...", they are pointing out that California has a 3 STRIKES law, that puts criminals away in prison for LIFE.(Regarding her upcoming criminal charges in L.A. filed by Mrs. Zubin Mehta) VERY interesting and good observation skills on that thread.
From: Kay (emailname) *
05/04/98 17:35:26 EDT

---

To: Kay
I can only hope she starts to chatter with life facing her.

3 strikes brings Clinton down. Love it. Thanks Kay
From: Howard V. (hwest@greenheart.com) *
05/04/98 17:41:40 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
When will this girl get it through her thick head, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU!!!!!
From: mancini (mancini@mainex1.asu.edu) *
05/04/98 17:46:33 EDT

---

To: Wade the News Consultant
That's a good point.
From: Boyd () *
05/04/98 17:48:57 EDT

---

To: Keith

The thing I find interesting here is that the GJ was very active in asking questions concerning Susie's silence, according to her lawyer and family.

Right. So it's "Starr, Starr, Starr -- the big meany!" This Little Rock grand jury of her peers must now be part of the VRWC.

Sounds like they didn't like her BS answers any better than Starr's people did.

Maybe then there's hope for the rest of America -- once facts come out.
From: Ed Burke () *
05/04/98 17:51:04 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Hold the tears, everyone. Who's going to send St. Susan's nomination to the Pope?
From: tom h () *
05/04/98 17:54:29 EDT

---

To: Wade the News Consultant
I'm going to send my girlfriend over and give you a big kiss!(You hit it..when I heard the Grand Jury was going back in for further deliberations, my heart started pumping!! Get ready Hillary...
From: Lonnie (emailname) *
05/04/98 17:57:30 EDT

---

To: sitetest
The Democrats passed that law specifically to let this woman out of jail. The man never did see the daughter because the woman took her out of the country and hid her.
From: go star go () *
05/04/98 18:00:13 EDT

---

To: Lonnie
Oh Please, Oh Please, Oh Please...
From: DB () *
05/04/98 18:02:26 EDT

---

To: Marcellus
FEAR...
From: Bubba () *
05/04/98 18:06:50 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Did anyone see her lawyer, Mark G? interviewed after INSIDE POLITICS? Said he is going to trial and the first two people he calls will be Ken Starr and Ewing. SO mad.
From: kaycee () *
05/04/98 18:11:20 EDT

---

To: Wade the News Consultant
If they can reach to Susan McDougal for something way beyond just simple failure to testify, they have no fear of going where the evidence takes them... and that means trouble, trouble in River City for Hillary!

-------------------

Could be that's why they did the 60 Minutes thing last night on the anger in Arkansas. I don't believe for a minute that the people of Arkansas are behind BC and HRC. I bet they can't wait to see them finally get what's coming to them!!!
From: jayhawk (jjek@ptsi.net) *
05/04/98 18:12:40 EDT

---

To: DB
Mug Shots, Finger Prints, Spread'em, handcuffs?
From: Lonnie (emailname) *
05/04/98 18:13:02 EDT

---

To: Kay
This is a display of immense ignorance by those who fell that Susan McDougal falls under California's 'Three-Strikes' law: 'Three Strikes' only applies to violent felons.

Nice try though.

From: The KG9 Kid (emailname) *
05/04/98 18:19:19 EDT

---

To: jayhawk
" I don't believe for a minute that the people of Arkansas are behind BC and HRC."

We're Not.
From: NDCORUP (NDCORUP@aol.com) *
05/04/98 18:24:10 EDT

---

To: NDCORUP
Bad news......MSNBC just announced that they learned that Hillary WILL NOT be indicted!!!!! What a disgrace!!!! I'm glad you're not behind BC and HRC!!!! Hope Ken Starr has something BIGGER in mind!!!!
From: jayhawk (jjek@ptsi.net) *
05/04/98 18:26:50 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
This shows us the LRGJ did not fall for her crocodile tears and BS routine "Starr wants me to lie" . They were insulted by her nonsense and refusal to testify. Gives me hope, they will not believe Hillary either. BTW - Doesn't Susan have a wonderful lawyer?

Wake up Hillary and Monica, you'll are next!
From: Txtruth (Txtruth@aol.com) *
05/04/98 18:27:01 EDT

---

To: Keith
I believe Judge Wright said she would not charge her with criminal contempt. A jury would have to decide.
From: Txtruth (Txtruth@aol.com) *
05/04/98 18:29:08 EDT

---

To: The KG9 Kid
One of the felonies has to be serious or violent for her to get 25-to-life. On the other hand, ANY prior felony conviction can increase the length of her sentence beyond the usual guidelines. Ten years would not be unusual, if the gets convicted in Little Rock and Los Angeles.
From: Son of Liberty () *
05/04/98 18:38:10 EDT

---

To: Son of Liberty
No: The first TWO felonies must be violent in order for the 'Three-Strikes' law to be implemented.

This is all moot anyway. Hillary will not be indicted.

Time for everyone to get over the 'Gee, I hope Ken Starr has got the goods' dreams.

There's nothing there. The White House sloppily but effectively covered their tracks.
From: The KG9 Kid (emailname) *
05/04/98 18:48:53 EDT

---

To: The KG9 Kid
'Three Strikes' only applies to violent felons.

Are you sure about that? I seem to recal the CA law being applied on drug and auto theft types... seems overly harsh to apply to non-violent felons, but I do think it can and has been.

Sincerly doubt it would apply to MacDougle.

From: Ditto (cacker4896@aol.com) *
05/04/98 18:52:06 EDT

---

To: Ditto
Actually, it applies to two types of felonies: violent (as defined) and serious (as defined). Neither applies here, in my opinion.
From: Clarity (emailname) *
05/04/98 18:57:22 EDT

---

To: Marcellus
It's the only place she can get a date.KB & TD
From: texasreb (texasreb@arcology.net) *
05/04/98 18:57:29 EDT

---

To: Ditto
No. You remember incorrectly. Understand that the THIRD strike can be for ANY felony. The FIRST TWO must have been 'violent'.

Yes, there have been folks who have been put away for 25-to-life for stealing a slice of pizza from two youngsters, but they had already served two terms for violent felonies.

'Three-Strikes' will not apply to Susan McDougal.

Plus, Hillary is not going to be indicted.

..And Bill will not be leaving the White House.

Everyone on the same page now?!
From: The KG9 Kid (emailname) *
05/04/98 18:57:30 EDT

---

To: Ditto
If you want to read the statute, you can go to www.seamless.com/alawyer/star5.html.

If I had any idea how to create a link here, I'd do it.
From: Clarity (emailname) *
05/04/98 19:01:51 EDT

---

To: Lindsey
Susan: Don't worry; the check's in the mail. You still have "public support"; you know what we mean.

Sincerely,

Hill & Billary.
From: black cloud (loglodge@rapidnet.com) *
05/04/98 19:07:46 EDT

---

To: black cloud
That's good.

(I'd love to see the transcripts of her prison phone calls.)
From: Clarity (emailname) *
05/04/98 19:11:34 EDT

---

To: Clarity
WHOM IS PAYING HER LAWYER IS THE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK. AND WHOM REFERRED THE LAWYER TO HER?
From: SPRINK (RWCDUDE) *
05/04/98 19:19:42 EDT

---

To: Clarity & KG9 Kid
Clarity,
Checked your link... thanks. I found list of 3 strike offenses at http://seamless.com/alawyer/star4.html, and none fit Susan McDougle. Actually, I'm relieved about that. As much as I'm convinced the woman is hiding serious felonies, this notion of life in prison for refusing to answer government questions should scared the hell out of all of us. That said, she should face serious punishment for refusing to testify under a grant of immunity.

KG9 Kid,
"Hillary is not going to be indicted"... YET!!!!

.."And Bill will not be leaving the White House"...UNTIL AUGUST... SEPTEMBER AT THE LATEST..-- when he is forced out by the DC establishment for being such an embarrassment and threat to their positions!

He'll leave the same way Nixon did, completely discredited and disgraced. Unlike Nixon, there will be no hope of "rehabilitation" since there is not a single redeeming feature in his character or his career to begin with. Far too much damaging information will be coming out in the next few months for even his most accomplished propaganda ministers to rationalize, excuse or avoid. He’s toast and he knows it

From: Ditto (cacker4896@aol.com) *
05/04/98 19:55:54 EDT

---

To: billie
yea!.....at least somebody got indicted.....just wish they could have gotten hillary too.......

thanks much for the flag.....your works this time, but mine still wont

From: grreta (wcsmith@earthlink.net) *
05/04/98 20:53:55 EDT

---

To: grreta
I love to see that flag waving! It is BEAUTIFUL!
From: Billie (emailname) *
05/05/98 10:46:09 EDT

---

[Support Free Republic]

I thought it might be interesting to occasionally post a thread from way back when. This is a post from 5 years ago today.

Your donations help keep Free Republic going strong. Help make Freepathons a thing of the past by making a donation when you can.

[jraven]

Why is this posted in 2003????

[Tacis]

This is still one of the most puzzling events in all the filth and corruption of Willie's years. What was Suzie hiding that she was willing to go to jail for? Her story about Starr is pure barbra streisand! What was she covering up? Did she fear Willie's killers who did Foaster and her ex-husband?

Another mystry of the time is, why did the FBI determine that the blue dress stain was Willie's? An organization that political, corruptable, poorly lead, and off track should have easily been able to manufacture different findings. What happened?

But, good post. We need to be reminded of the utter filth of Willie and the dems every now and again. We will come to understande why Starr published the record as he did. Memories of facts fade and Willie's sewer dwellers will continue to try to build his disgraced legacy. Without Starr's record, some of the decay of his years might be distorted or concealed. It would be much like Suzie saying she went to jail for reasons that simply are not true.