Skip to comments.
Order Denying Monica Lewinsky's Application for Attorney Fees
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ^
| December 30, 2003
| SENTELLE, Presiding, FAY and REAVLEY, Senior Circuit Judges
Posted on 12/30/2003 9:22:37 AM PST by kennedy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Alamo-Girl
Ping for your Clinton archives.
21
posted on
12/30/2003 10:31:39 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Hic amor, haec patria est.)
To: kennedy
The only way the Monica Clintoon affair could get more entertaining is if she showed up at every event he was at.
22
posted on
12/30/2003 10:34:07 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
To: kennedy
...the fees would not have been incurred but for the requirements of the Act... Or covering up the act. Sums it up for me....
24
posted on
12/30/2003 11:02:58 AM PST
by
talleyman
(God bless FR & Merry Christmas!)
To: kennedy
LOL, you'd eat yourself silly if you were Billy Boy's girl, too!
To: hunter112
"Why can't she sue Slick for it? His evasion of the truth caused the expenditure of her attorney fees, and made her name a national joke."
Maybe she wants to remain among the living?
26
posted on
12/30/2003 11:10:37 AM PST
by
LADY J
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: princess leah
So who are you going to believe, slick willie, or your lying eyes?????
28
posted on
12/30/2003 11:53:20 AM PST
by
OldFriend
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To: princess leah
it states that a sexual relationship actually occured in the courts records. 100 years from now, when history books are being written, historians will not look to any of the spin now being put out by the Democrat talking heads on TV. They will look to permanent court records such as this.
Clinton's final legacy has now been written.
29
posted on
12/30/2003 12:02:27 PM PST
by
kennedy
To: hunter112
I'm not saying this is gest...she can probably sue him for sexual harrassment. He was the person in charge. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if it's consenual, it's still deemed harrassment.
30
posted on
12/30/2003 12:05:10 PM PST
by
Hildy
To: Hildy
Yeah, just ask Koby Bryant, huh?
Comment #32 Removed by Moderator
To: princess leah
Forgot the sarcasm - should just stick to one story at a time here!
To: princess leah
If it wasn't about sex, she deserves to be reimbursed by the authorities(you). If it was about sex, Bill should settle the bill. IS he or ISn't he responsible?
34
posted on
12/30/2003 2:03:11 PM PST
by
meenie
(Remember the Alamo! Alamo! One more time. Alamo!!!)
To: kennedy
Order Denying Monica Lewinsky's Application for Attorney Fees Lewinsky: "Geez, how many judges does a girl have to bl-w in this town to get reimbursed for attorney fees?"
35
posted on
12/30/2003 2:34:47 PM PST
by
searchandrecovery
(America - Welcome to Sodom & Gomorrah West)
To: kennedy
Ok, here I go again.
Can someone please tell me the exact word for word question where Clinton's answer was "It depends on what the definition of is, is"?
So far, no one has been able to answer this for me or they give me a vague answer which doesn't quite fit.
Thank you in advance to the Freeper who can help me out with this.
36
posted on
12/30/2003 2:42:56 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Shooter 2.5
QUESTION: Your -- that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means. If is means is, and never has been, that's one thing. If it means, there is none, that was a completely true statement.
But as I have testified -- I'd like to testify again -- this is -- it somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's statements instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was focusing on my own testimony. And that if you go back and look at the sequence of events, you will see that the Jones' lawyers decided that this was going to be the Lewinsky deposition, not the Jones deposition. And given the facts of their case, I can understand why they made that decision.
But that is not how I prepared for it. That is not how I was thinking about it.
And I am not sure, Mr. Wisenberg, as I sit here today that I sat there and followed all these interchanges between the lawyers. I'm quite sure that I didn't follow all the interchanges between the lawyers all that carefully. And I don't really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr. Bennett's testimony or statement is testimony that is impugnable to me. I didn't -- I don't know that I was really paying that much attention to him.
37
posted on
12/30/2003 2:52:12 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Thank you for answering something that I had asked a dozen times already. I think my friends had stopped worrying about what the question was after they heard that ridiculous answer.
What an unbelievably slimy character clintoon is.
38
posted on
12/30/2003 3:03:55 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Shooter 2.5
You're welcome and yes he is a slimy creature.
39
posted on
12/30/2003 3:05:23 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: meenie
Bill Clinton has NEVER been RESPONSIBLE in his entire adult life! Is THAT what you're asking me? Should he pay - YEP and dearly too but hey, I'm not a lawyer or judge.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson