"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._whitewater_dc
>Court Rejects Clintons' Legal Fees Request
>27 minutes ago
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected a
>request by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and his
>wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), for
>reimbursement of all their legal fees during the Whitewater
>independent counsel investigation.
>
>Of more than $3.5 million in legal fees during the investigation that
>dogged Clinton's presidency, the three-judge panel said the Clintons
>would be reimbursed for $85,312 for a single, unique item -- the
>amount spent reviewing and responding to the independent counsel's
>final reports.

While I'm no fan of the Clintons ... if nobody could
prove they'd done anything wrong in their Whitewater
dealings then really they SHOULD be compensated for
their court and legal costs. It is an old trick - try
to break the opposition through legal expenses even
if you don't really have a case against them. Big
companies do this all the time - to screw people out
of damages claims or issues involving patents. Just
keep the legal issue alive until your opponent can't
afford to continue. Then you've "won".

Injustice is injustice even IF we're talking about
the Clintons.

"BlackWater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:g0s8hv8j9v94fjj9n9uosj2quuk4qlec8q@4ax.com...
> "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=578&e=4&u=/n
m/20030715/ts_nm/clinton_whitewater_dc
> >Court Rejects Clintons' Legal Fees Request
> >27 minutes ago
> >
> >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected a
> >request by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and his
> >wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), for
> >reimbursement of all their legal fees during the Whitewater
> >independent counsel investigation.
> >
> >Of more than $3.5 million in legal fees during the investigation
that
> >dogged Clinton's presidency, the three-judge panel said the
Clintons
> >would be reimbursed for $85,312 for a single, unique item -- the
> >amount spent reviewing and responding to the independent counsel's
> >final reports.
>
> While I'm no fan of the Clintons ... if nobody could
> prove they'd done anything wrong in their Whitewater
> dealings then really they SHOULD be compensated for
> their court and legal costs. It is an old trick - try
> to break the opposition through legal expenses even
> if you don't really have a case against them. Big
> companies do this all the time - to screw people out
> of damages claims or issues involving patents. Just
> keep the legal issue alive until your opponent can't
> afford to continue. Then you've "won".
>
> Injustice is injustice even IF we're talking about
> the Clintons.

That's not quite the way it happened. Much of the
expenses incurred by the Clintons came in the service
of them stonewalling and obstructing the investigation.
In the end, however, Clinton was not cleared of all
wrongdoing. He struck the equivalent of a plea bargain,
and I'm sure that the appeals court took that into
consideration, along with the stonewalling tactics
that the Clintons employed. There's no reason for
the public to pay for the Clinton's legal bills.