I've finally had a chance to read this lengthy appellate brief. Paul's evidence and legal citations (which cases I have not read in their entirety) sound compelling and persuasive on their face.
What I know of the prior history of this case is that it survived the Clintons' motion to dismiss it in its entirety. HRC herself was dismissed as a defendant but Bill was left as a defendant. HRC, however (along with Chelsea) were compelled to testify.
This brief appeals from the decision of the lower court to deny Paul his expedited limited discovery (ie the testimony of HRC) until after the November elections.(I have also heard that the Judge so ruling, was a WJC appointee but have not confirmed that).
I'm now thinking that this may be one reason HRC is staying in this campaign against all odds and reason. My guess is that if/when she drops out, Paul will submit another motion for her immediate testimony. If this were to happen and be granted, she would once again be embroiled in Clintonesque controversy, and that, together with her already high untrustworthiness ratings, would surely sound her death knell in the party.
Court Docs Paul vs Clinton
Monday, May 26, 2008
I've finally had a chance to read this lengthy appellate brief. Paul's evidence and legal citations (which cases I have not read in their entirety) sound compelling and persuasive on their face.
What I know of the prior history of this case is that it survived the Clintons' motion to dismiss it in its entirety. HRC herself was dismissed as a defendant but Bill was left as a defendant. HRC, however (along with Chelsea) were compelled to testify.
This brief appeals from the decision of the lower court to deny Paul his expedited limited discovery (ie the testimony of HRC) until after the November elections.(I have also heard that the Judge so ruling, was a WJC appointee but have not confirmed that).
I'm now thinking that this may be one reason HRC is staying in this campaign against all odds and reason. My guess is that if/when she drops out, Paul will submit another motion for her immediate testimony. If this were to happen and be granted, she would once again be embroiled in Clintonesque controversy, and that, together with her already high untrustworthiness ratings, would surely sound her death knell in the party.
Any attorneys out there who want to weigh in??
Court Docs Paul vs Clinton
http://www.paulvclinton.com/final_brief_wtoc_01102007.pdf