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?
I can't answer all the legal questions.
Her removal as defendant, which is under appeal, is based on an "anti-SLAPP" law. Peter's attorney believes the judge wrongly interpreted the facts relative to the statute and it doesn't apply here.
We hope that the civil trial is going to expose a wealth of information about what the Clintons have done in this case. Here declaration will be shown to be disingenuous, if not perjurious. Whether a judge will do something about it, we don't know.
Peter has extensive documentation and evidence that will paint a very damaging picture for Hillary.
Discovery will begin after the appeal is heard on whether she is brought back into the case. Who knows, maybe Kendall will take it to the Supreme Court if she is brought back in.