re: first met
Peter and I laughed and discussed that when I first saw the declaraton on April 7i, 2006. Yes, Hillary can try to make the claim that she met him in early 2000. That would be a true statement, but for purposes of the declaration, she is going to have to do better than that.
If I understand correctly, Hillary has been successful so far at separating herself from the case; that is, she is not a defendant, though the matter is on appeal.
Does this lie support her claim that she deserves not to be a defendant? Does the appeal cover this lie?
More generally, is there a mechanism outside the fact-finding of the actual civil trial to hold Hillary accountable for the lie? Can a motion be made to the judge to hold Hillary in contempt for swearing to such a lie?
BJ's house of cards tumbled when the DNA on the dress revealed the nature of the perjury and obstruction of justice that was needed to cover up his involvement with Lewinsky. Do you anticipate a similar chain of events for Hillary? Is there somebody today sitting on a pile of tapes of which all the other players are unaware? Has the discovery process gotten under way? Is every person being deposed to be asked regarding permanent records of relevant conversations?
A further question is; can a judge order Hillary to re-submit the declaration with the lie corrected?
Especially if there is an entire line of connected lies in the declaration, it would be quite a show to have her correct the declaration "one lie at a time". What entertainment.
As you have pointed out, I think, the fact that Hillary's campaign has had to file corrected statements of donations argues strongly for the fact that her campaign has been, at best, incompetent. Similarly, having to respond multiple times to a court's orders to correct falsehoods might get people's attention.
On a related note, isn't Kendall still Hillary's attorney? Doesn't he have a duty to the Bar to distance himself from illegal behavior? I recall that his role in this has been questioned. Do the facts support a challenge of his continued involvement? Wasn't it Bob Bennet that disappeared suddenly from BJ's side when the DNA made clear that perjury had been committed?