Remember Susan McDougal?

[babylonsister]

Link to tweet

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. It was a court order, not a congressional subpoena ...

And hence not enforced by 'Republicans'.

But okay ...

[Effete Snob]

3. Apparently, some people actually do not "remember Susan McDougal"

[Effete Snob]

2. What did "the Republicans" have to do with it?

She defied a grand jury subpoena, not a Congressional committee.

[DURHAM D]

4. Seriously?

How old are you?

ETA: Here is her wiki entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

[Effete Snob]

5. I'm in my late 50's

And remember it well.

I also know the difference between a Grand Jury and a Congressional committee. Apparently there are some who don’t understand those are very different things.

[DURHAM D]

7. The problem is

that you seem to think it was not partisan i.e. "the Republicans" in your post.

No one cares about your grand jury/ congressional committee point.

[stopdiggin]

10. the 'point' is actually hugely significant

in that the subpoenas that are being discussed here for defiance - are congressional. Please don't trot apples and oranges, and then get all hissy when people point out the difference.

[DURHAM D]

11. See post 9.

The info is in the wiki entry posted above.

[ShazzieB]

18. The salient point is that she was testifying before a grand jury, NOT a congressional committee.

That means the subpoena was enforced by the court, NOT by "Republicans" or anyone else in Congress.

[malaise]

29. Snd both can have you locked up for criminal contempt n/t

[malaise]

30. And both can have you locked up for criminal contempt n/t

[stopdiggin]

31. the point is that McDougal really has

little bearing or relevance on the issues we are discussing today.
(despite the argumentative nature of DU denizens)

[stopdiggin]

8. people that don't understand the difference

(and it's pretty clear that they don't - or don't want to)
And then they go and get all pis*y when someone points out the glaringly obvious. Sigh.
----- .....

[Effete Snob]

13. Notably not imprisoned for defiance of Congressional subpoenas...

Lois Lerner, Anne Burford, Eric Holder.

Two of whom were subpoenaed by Republican committees.

Those historical examples don’t count for some reason.

[Effete Snob]

14. How about you answer a question

Are you old enough to remember Anne Burford, Lois Lerner, and Eric Holder, and can you explain what they all have in common?

If not, stop learning law from Wikipedia.

[DURHAM D]

16. lol learning the law nt

[Grasswire2]

20. How about you being a little more civil to members here? nt

[babylonsister]

25. Thank you. nt

[Solomon]

28. The name is not Effete Snob for nothing...

[Effete Snob]

32. It's a historical reference

Having been asked “how old are you?” As some sort of irrelevant ageist personal attack on me maybe one might Google that phrase.

Because people of a certain age remember the phrase well.

[Effete Snob]

33. What was "how old are you?"

I was responding to a demeaning attempt at an ageist personal attack.

But I guess that sort of thing is what passes for “civil” with some.

[Grasswire2]

9. She did not defy a grand jury subpoena.

She refused to answer three specific questions when she was before a grand jury answering other questions.

And she was imprisoned for 18 months, some solitary, at times chained to the cell toilet, shackled with violent offenders when moved.

[Effete Snob]

12. One is subpoenaed before a Grand Jury...

…to answer questions. The subpoena does not require merely showing up. It requires one to be prepared to answer the questions.

[Grasswire2]

19. She did answer questions.

Many, many questions.

[StevieM]

21. What Ken Starr did to her was horrifying. (eom)

[uponit7771]

23. This is false, "During the grand jury, McDougal stated her full name "for the record" ..." she

... refused to answer 3 questions and they sent her through hell.

This is the "republican" part of the story seeing the questions she was asked from hyper partisan Ken Starr was "did Clinton lie ..." wish is 100% bullshit from Starr and the judge.

McDougal should have had a lawyer to help her but my understanding she couldn't during grand jury proceedings which is more bullshit.

I wish people would stop defending the US court systems like they're not openly fallible.

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/mcdougal.trials/

Civil contempt of court.

Background

Susan McDougal refused to answer three questions from Whitewater prosecutors before the grand jury empaneled by Independent Counsel Ken Starr to investigate Whitewater in September 1996, citing concerns about possible perjury charges down the road.

[Grasswire2]

34. yes

Her experience was horrifying. Brutal.

[Demovictory9]

6. yep.

[Duppers]

15. K & R

I thought of her a few months ago.

We Dems should be playing their hardball.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

17. Yes, I remember her.

I read her book and saw her at a book event. Here's what matters most:

"I feared being accused of perjury if I told the grand jury the truth. The OIC had accepted David Hale's lies as the truth. They were also now relying on Jim McDougal's lies, which they'd carefully helped him construct. If I came in and directly contradicted those two -- whose testimony had been used to convict me of four felonies -- I feared the OIC would next accuse me of perjury."

Which is why she refused to answer questions. She was essentially protecting her husband, who had lied, but whose lies had been accepted as truth. Read her book, "The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk". It's very eye-opening.

[czarjak]

22. Different yolks for different folks?

[lostnfound]

24. Trivia: any connection between Brett Kavanaugh and Susan McDougal case?

[Champp]

26. Wow - such foul Republican hypocrisy

No republican honor at all. None.

[UCmeNdc]

27. K&R

[Effete Snob]

35. Meanwhile...

Link to tweet

[Kid Berwyn]

36. Odd how that is.

Same thing for filibusters.