Posted on 10/16/2007 4:47:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
An appellate court has denied a motion to reinstate Sen. Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a lawsuit that claims she, former President Clinton and others induced a former supporter to finance a 2000 fundraising gala.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to remove the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate from a lawsuit filed by Peter Paul. The three-judge panel also said Clinton can recoup legal costs.
Paul claims he spent more than $1.9 million to underwrite the lavish Hollywood fundraising gala in August 2000 that attracted Brad Pitt, Diana Ross and Cher.
Paul said he financed the event and other fundraisers for Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton agreed to join the board of his company, Stan Lee Media, after he left the White House.
“Can you make it to Dartmouth of Saint Anselm College for the screenings?”
New Hampshire? I can’t travel much at the moment; have you got anything closer?
Sorry, my FRiend, I can not—but the closer you get to Southern Delaware, the better my chances get.
Kristinn—a thought—any possibiltiies for a venue for a screening in the DC area?
Manhattan on Oct. 30.
A group is actually looking at the possibility of a DC screening. Hey, as long as I’m in the neighborhood.
How about the White House screening room :-)
Did anyone ever expect any other result here?
Okay. Can you arrange it? That really would be classic.
Next time I’m invited I’ll see if I can bring a copy with me.
Why not—after all, we the people own it!
Lessee, where’s my number for Dana Parini-—it’s here somewhere......
Thanks for the ping!
It’s really disgusting to think that the American People could be brain-dead enough to reward the Clinton Behavior by putting them back into the White House. How is it that Bill Clinton could be sent back to the White House after something like Monica Lewinsky. One thing is clear from that incident, the marriage is a fake. Hillary is too strong of a women to put up with that, there is no way she would ever put up with it, the only explaination is that their marriage is a power arrangement, and that’s it. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe the Clintons are the reason why we were targeted by the terrorists? Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the Muslums were outraged by the immoral conduct of the Clintons and the people letting them get away with all their stunts. Personally, I think it has had something to do with motivating the terrorists. They think we are all morally bankrupt. I personally blame the Clintons for 9/11.
Excellent post!
Excellent post!
“Manhattan on Oct. 30.”
Bad knee, can’t do it.
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.