Patterico's Pontifications

10/17/2007

Deposition of the Year

Filed under: 2008 Election,Politics — DRJ @ 5:41 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Without even knowing whether or when it will happen, I nominate the deposition of Hillary Clinton for the Deposition of the Year.

From the Cybercast News Service:

“A California court ruled Tuesday that Hillary Clinton will not be a defendant in a fraud lawsuit brought by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, who claimed the Clintons destroyed his business after he raised millions for her first Senate campaign in 2000. But she could still be a material witness and be required to testify about what she knew concerning alleged illegal campaign fundraising.

In an interesting footnote, Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial lawyer David Kendall represents Hillary in the California lawsuit. Kendall succeeded in protecting her from being a defendant but was not able to shield her from being deposed:

“California Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, who ruled Sen. Clinton would not be a defendant, warned Clinton attorney David Kendall last year not to try to block her deposition during discovery. “Any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival,” the judge said.”

I wonder if Kendall helped Hillary craft the following carefully worded statement?

“Sen. Clinton’s firmest rebuttal of Paul’s charges came in a written declaration on April 7, 2006:

“I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton, and I do not believe I made any such statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred.”

Clinton-speak … sure brings back memories, doesn’t it?

— DRJ

13 Responses to “Deposition of the Year”

  1. “Sen. Clinton’s firmest rebuttal of Paul’s charges came in a written declaration on April 7, 2006: “I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton, and I do not believe I made any such statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred.”

    Wow.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. She should avoid this phrase:

    “I did not have sexual relations with that man, Mr. Paul.”

    WLS (bafbcb)

  3. I do not believe that I can recall meeting anyone who talked like this who wasn’t trying to sell me something I didn’t want.

    At least, I don’t believe I have.

    As far as I can recall.

    SMG

    SteveMG (902aad)

  4. A: I did not have financial relations with that man, Mr. Paul. (Neither debits or credits, nor deposits or withdrawals as I recall).

    Q: Are you Hsure Ms. Clinton?

    A: Yes I am Hsure.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  5. To suggest “the Clinton’s destroyed his business” is distinctly lacking in frankness.

    Court pleadings show that Paul is a three time convicted felon, having most recently pleading guilty on March 7, 2005 to one count of violating a securities fraud regulation as it pertained to Stan Lee Media stock. He is currently awaiting sentencing on that matter.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/413932/plaintiff_in_clinton_fundraising_dispute.html?page=3

    steve (e452ed)

  6. Court pleadings show that Paul is a three time convicted felon, having most recently pleading guilty on March 7, 2005 to one count of violating a securities fraud regulation as it pertained to Stan Lee Media stock. He is currently awaiting sentencing on that matter.

    Who did what? Err … excuse me, what?

    … he raised millions for her first Senate campaign in 2000.

    Mrs. Clinton seems to have a strong attraction to felons. Fatal beauty?

    nk (6e4f93)

  7. Hmm…I wonder where that Stan Lee Media money was spent?

    http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/3594.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9hpMhcIcC8

    http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/3149.html

    Sorry that none of those links are political. How about according to the LA Times:

    http://www.caclean.org/problem/latimes_2003-07-20.php

    Hmm…it seems that the securities fraud he is awaiting sentencing on is related to the fundraiser. Hmm…

    Like I wrote earlier, sorry that all the links are “popular culture” links, but I’m not a talking points kind of guy.

    Christian Johnson (aa4f59)

  8. He is a convicted felon for doing Hillary’s bidding, so now crazies come out of the woodwork saying Hillary had nothing to do with his downfall since he’s just a rotten felon.

    The GOP eats her own too, of course.

    Dustin (9e390b)

  9. It’s much ado about na-du-shki; Killary** has already been selected. Election is passe; selection has been in, uh, for quite some time.

    It’s called ebb and flow, Democratins and Republicrats on stage. It’s also called
    versimilitude. Deal with it.

    **Rudi is the sacrifice for 2008; bank on it.

    King Pandeen (87ec7f)

  10. While Peter Paul is a convicted felon, and has even violated his parole, he did serve his time, such as it was. Individuals may not like his being a felon and generally sleazy character, but where is the part of having him pre-relegated to the side-lines due to past misdeeds he has served his time for?

    Further, his evidence against Hillary in her 2000 run for the Senate is one of the first of its time to have live videotape of the proceedings that led to her deep financial and structural involvement in a money funneling event. Stan Lee, no push-over from all that I have seen in the comic book world and more than a bit worldly wise, also knew that they were entering into a direct play for Bill Clinton to serve as a prime endorser for their company. This was a ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ sort of deal for the Clintons. The backing of Tendo Oto proved to be the undoing of the deal as the Clintons saw *him* as more important than Stan Lee Media, Stan Lee and Peter Paul.

    The Clintons have done something absolutely shocking in politics: they have thrown over a political backer on the view of getting to their even richer supporter. What other politician would throw over a friend of a campaign (and leading backer) on such grounds? Remember that Peter Paul and SLM were FRIENDS of the Clintons up to the disembowling of SLM to get at Oto.

    If the Clintons will do this to their FRIENDS, then how can they be entrusted with anything? In politics and in life you just do not do that, ever. Else which other ‘friend’ will they be looking to do that to *next*?

    ajacksonian (87eccd)

  11. Steve, give me a break… Does that prove it didn’t take place? Shall we look at Rose Law Firm files, cattle futures and any assortment of scandals from Arkansas to present (as in Hsu, missing Winkle Paw… etc.). Oh, I forgot… records sealed for the first lady; Well, those Sandy didn’t get ahold of… getting low on the number of flippers who could testify as well.

    But move along, nothing to see here. It’s not as if we have to fundraising letters written in their hands after the leak was fed (Paul, felon), or the videos of them together and of her on the phone with them re: big BJ shindig.

    Ali (dfe40d)

  12. Oh Steve, here’s a short review for you:
    http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/index.asp?svComment=18693

    You’re welcome.

    Ali (dfe40d)

  13. Patterico:

    Any idea of when discovery would go forward and depositions would be scheduled? I imagine the Clinton folk would try to delay it, but if they’re not a defendant it would seem there’s only so much they can do.

    Also, are deposition transcripts public record in California? Might there be videotape?

    Geek, Esq. (a41cd9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2991 secs.