Posted on 04/13/2006 11:19:51 AM PDT by doug from upland
Hillary Clinton Off Case, Still May Testify
A California judge has signaled that 2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton will not be able to avoid being deposed for a civil lawsuit against her husband and others involved in a Hollywood fundraiser for her 2000 Senate campaign, according to a lawyer involved in the case.
Colette Wilson, who represents one-time Clinton fundraiser Peter Paul, tells the New York Sun that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz indicated last week that any attempt to prevent Mrs. Clinton from giving sworn testimony in the case would be "dead on arrival."
Mr. Paul footed the bill for an August 12, 2000 gala-tribute to the Clintons that raised money for Mrs. Clinton's first Senate campaign. His lawsuit alleges that in exchange for financing the gala, Mr. Clinton agreed to help him promote his company, Stan Lee Media, once he left the White House - and that Clinton later reneged on the deal.
In his ruling, Judge Munoz removed Mrs. Clinton as a defendant in the case, saying that Mr. Paul had failed to produce evidence indicating she "was aware that the promises were not made in good faith."
Story Continues Below
But Munoz failed to grant a motion from her attorney, David Kendall, to have the entire case dismissed. Given the former first couple's tortured history with sworn testimony - Mr. Clinton's false statement in the Paula Jones civil case resulted in his impeachment - the depositions could be problematic; especially as Mrs. Clinton prepares for her 2008 presidential run.
Clinton has already been compelled to testify briefly in the case, saying in a written statement to the court that she has "no recollection" of the arrangement described by Mr. Paul.
"I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby [Mr. Paul] would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton," the top Democrat told the court. "And I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."
But Paul's attorney countered: "What Hillary was doing was trying to persuade him she was highly interested in his entering into a business deal with her husband. At the actual gala, they talked about it."
Mr. Paul said he expects both the ex-president and the former first lady to be deposed in the next few months.
That's good news, but will it hurt her? I expect she'll show up in a pink suit and answer every question with "I can't remember." It's worked for her before--she's the one who came up with the idea while she was helping to prepare the case against Richard Nixon in the early 70s.
Hillary will never get close to sworn testimony unless it is "I don't remember", "I don't recall", "I don't recollect it that way".
Unless Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz gets threats personally or to his family and friends.. or has an accident.. He probably don't know who he is dealing with..
What's all the suspense about? As an exclusive for FR, I'm going to release the Witch's testimony early:
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
"I don't recall"... "I don't recollect"."I don't recall"... "I don't recollect".
And last but not least.... (drum roll)
"I invoke my 5th amendment rights ..."
Strange memory loss afflicted both of them throughout their co-presidency, but writing their multi-million dollar memoirs seemed to refresh their hillbilly memories.
[Apologies to hillbillies, mountain-men, ridge-runners and `sons-of-the-soil']
Whoops, you forgot, "I'm sorry. I don't remember."
Sorry is right--sorry excuse for human beings!
With the fear if indictment and incarceration removed, their memories suddenly becam 20/20 didn't they.
I don't recall, my head is jello!
"In his ruling, Judge Munoz removed Mrs. Clinton as a defendant in the case,"
Isn't this a classic Clinton ploy? Save her from the biggie, but give her a small fall-back penalty, one she can manipulate (I don't recall), so it looks like the fix wasn't in to the public.
Doug, I'm sorry, because I know and appreciate how much you have invested in this, but I believe it will die aborning.
We shall see, John.
Isn't this good news?
Try to remember and if you remember then follow...
I hope you know how much I'd love to be wrong.
Yes, it is very good news that she is going to have to be raising her right hand.
What. How in the hell can this judge rule this way. It looks like an conspiracy and this judge is in the middle. What more does the plaintiff have to do. It should be up to a jury to decide guilt or not. Was it not her campaign? Did she not use Paul for a fundraiser? Oh, I get it. The judge used a crystal ball and it is the famous RAT ball.
Some day a legal beagle will get smart in a depo and say, You don't remember, but two years later in your book you wrote!
Slime begets slime, they protect there inter circle.
I meant deposed as in "removed from power."
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.