Word: susane
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...part of Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation that actually deals with Whitewater, the key witness is David Hale. Hale says that in 1986, when he headed a small lending operation, Bill Clinton pressured him to make an illegal loan to Susan McDougal, a partner of the Clintons in Whitewater. Testimony by Hale helped convict McDougal, her ex-husband James and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Starr's biggest prizes to date. All the same, Hale is not the ideal keystone for a case against the President. Not when Hale has pleaded guilty to fraud. And not when he started...
...SUSAN CARPENTER-McMILLAN The Madame Defarge of the CNN era finds a career: not spokeswoman but makeover artist...
...Hubbell didn't provide any useful testimony in 1994, when Starr convicted him of bilking clients and partners at the Rose law firm. He isn't any more likely to do so now. And Hubbell isn't the only one who has stymied Starr. Clinton's former Whitewater partner Susan McDougal has refused to cooperate. The Clintons have had their memory lapses. And Starr has failed to turn little fish against big ones. His Whitewater endgame may amount to nothing more than a final bash at Hubbell, a scathing report on the Clintons and a stiff march into the sunset...
...prosecutor was hoping Tucker could corroborate a central allegation against Clinton: that in 1986 Clinton pressured former judge David Hale to make an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal. That allegation came from Hale, a convicted felon whose credibility took another beating last month when published reports accused him of receiving payments from right-wing Clinton haters. Clinton's other Whitewater partner, Jim McDougal, at first denied the allegation, then confirmed it--but his credibility was no better than Hale's, and he died last month in prison. Starr can't build a case around the Hale loan unless...
Chief executives in heat should probably not look to Judge Susan Webber Wright's ruling as a license to terrorize. True, even with the Rutherford Institute's money and a team of highly motivated lawyers, advantages most sexual-harassment plaintiffs don't have, Jones lost. What is more, many judges think sexual-harassment claims have gone too far, that one-time propositions like Clinton's should not be the basis for litigation. Call this the "no harm, no foul" school, and include among its proponents a majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, for instance, recently wrote that sexual...