Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clintons Lose Whitewater Appeal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:12 AM
Original message
Clintons Lose Whitewater Appeal
WASHINGTON - The federal government does not have to pay for the bulk of former president Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton's legal fees arising out of the Whitewater independent counsel investigation, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The Clintons had sought reimbursement for more than $3.5 million in lawyer costs stemming from the long-running probe of the failed Arkansas land deal.

But a federal appeals panel issued a 14-page decision ruling the Clintons would have been investigated with or without the appointment of an independent counsel, and therefore should pay the overwhelming majority of those legal costs.

The federal government will pay $85,312.01 to the Clintons in legal fees for their lawyers' review and response to the counsel's final report, the judges ruled.

more: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6308143.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Figures
Even though I feel this suit was justified, especially since they were found INNOCENT of any Whitewater wrongdoing, the Clintons probably should have dropped it early on. Financially, they are both set now. They can afford the bills, and having pursued the lawsuit only gave ammo to the right wing (and kept *'s bungling off the front page).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. It's not on the front page of mu evening paper
but a story about Scott Riter's new book trashing Bush is (he's a graduate of a local college here.) Besides, Bush's problems are not going away anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. Why should Reagan and Bush be reimbursed
and not the Clintons? Couldn't Ronnie and Poppy afford to pay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It's a right-wing court, that's why
this is the same crew (David Sentelle, etc.) who fired Robert Fiske and appointed Ken Starr in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh well, didn't hurt to try.
Imo, the Clinton's shouldn't have to pay one cent for the bogus Whitewater investigation. The rabid fraction of the republican party should pay it. But we know that won't happen. Bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. The joke's on the gubmint.
Two of Bill's speaking engagements will pay any remaining legal fees. Y'know, if the repukes hadn't gone after him the way they did, he might not have so many interesting things to talk about on the lecture circuit. You GO, Mr. Clinton!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is fair
I mean, we paid for Starr's astronomcial legal bill, we shouldn't have to pay for BOTH the defense and prosecution, besides, Bill and Hill can personally afford it.
Now, if we could just prove that it was Rush, Newt, and the VRWC that started the whole thing, we might get our money back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The Clintons were doing this on principle
This same appeals court (stacked with wingnuts) reimbursed Bush I and Reagan for some of their expenses. They have a history of favoring Repub reimbursement claims and turning down Dem ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Principle?
If that were the case, why did he admit giving misleading testimony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. he never admited that
he never admited he gave misleading testimony.

Jeesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-03 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. He certainly did admit to giving misleading testamony
Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe

President's law license suspended for 5 years
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

more: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLibra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. NYorker...Mass: Excuse?? Starr was carrying on a neoCON witch hunt.....
...so why shouldn't we pay for both??? I'd sure as crap rather pay the Clinton's defense fund in its entirety than pay one penny to the neo CONS for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPHater Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Clinton Wars
Read the Clinton Wars, then try to tell me that the Clinton's should pay for their legal bills. The GOP should be paying the bills, plus pain and suffering. So should a major portion of the "media". This says that anybody can sue anybody for political purposes, even if they know the accusations are false, and the defendant has to pay to fend it off. Ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Precedent
is this good news for when we hang W* out to dry? Will he have to pay for his own defense when his lies and high crimes and misdemeanors go to trial?

wishful thinking on my part....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DifferentStrokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. That's exactly what I was thinking
It sets a lovely precedent that will leave the Repugs without much wiggle room.

The Clintons would have to file another suit for malicious prosecution against the perps to recover their costs. I hope they will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Yes we will pay for W because it is directly connected to the White House
the courts ruled against the Clintons because they say Whitewater is not related to the office of the president but a personal issue.

However, we all know that if Clinton hadn't had the misfortune of becoming president there would not have been any investigation at all.

What a shame. But I'm thankful they have both recovered financially from attempts to break them in every way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is outrageous
What about all those people in the Administration who filed to have their legal fees paid - just because they happened to be there. Have read that Clinton has been raising money to help those within the administration pay those fees. Are you aware that even Richard Melon Scaife and David Hale filed to have their fees paid? Were they paid? Does anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mjb4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. It is OUTRAGEOUS
the law was written for bad people like Dems and blacks. They keep getting the short end of the stick. Remember the window hit and run trial, well a white girl hit a killed a mexican girl over a bennigans meal ticket and she will only get 5 years. figures
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. This headline is outrageous.
To the average bloke who only reads the headlines, it gives entirely the wrong impression. They lost the appeal to recover the costs of their defense. They were never charged in Whitewater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Here's David Kendall's comment:
The couple's lawyer, David Kendall, issued a statement saying that former President Ronald Reagan was reimbursed for 72 percent of his legal costs stemming from the Iran-Contra investigation, and his vice president George Bush was reimbursed for 59 percent of his costs in the same matter.
The Clintons, Kendall said, were reimbursed for only 2 percent of their request for Whitewater costs.
"The facts and the numbers speak for themselves," said Kendall. "The good news is that the partisan Whitewater smoke-and-mirrors investigation is finally over."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. Gene Lyons & "Smut Slut" Coulter
will be on Buchannan & Press to discuss this at 6 pm. Lyons is very good but soft spoken; hope he doesn't let the "smut-slut" talk over him. Can't stand to watch her but will watch because of Lyons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nottingham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
21. This is Not Justice! This President was Harrassed& Harrassed!
Luckily Hillary is making Great money on her Book!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-03 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. This is a prime and sickening example of the Double Standard
between Dems and Republicans.

It is also an example of the IMPORTANCE of JUDICIARY APPOINTMENTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC