I think not. She was seeking reimbursement, from the US taxpayers, to cover her legal expenses, inconnection to her legal cost attendant to the independent counsel's investigation into her infamous blow-job. the 3-judge panel agrees w me on this one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42858-2003Dec30.html
I'd say I agree with Lewinsky here. How did she spend $1.1million!!! (and who came up with the money???) Had she given the presidential treatment to any other boss her legal troubles would not have been so severe. (she may even have received a promotion - booooooo). Does not seem out of line for the Gov to cover her legal costs here given the public nature of the proceedings.
Can someone explain to me why Linda Tripp, who started this whole thing, should be reimbursed by the taxpayers but Lewinsky shouldn't?
This is just my speculation... but Tripp was a whistle-blower who was attacked legally and personally by the people whe blew the whistle on. It's not too different from that women who blew the whistle on Enron. It would have been completely unfair for her to pay legal fees if Enron had sued here, not to mention it would discourage whistle-blowing. Personally I feel that Bill should pay for Lewenski's legal fees. He's the guy who should have known better and he's the guy (not to mention his camp) who tried to cover everything up instead of just coming clean.
My bad. I was under the mistaken assumption that Tripp's settlement was for the same thing. I do find it very funny that Tripp got a settlement for someone invading her privacy though. Maybe she should have to reimburse Monica.
Tripp had a different legal argument. The Defense Department leaked information from her personnel file to the press. Technically, that was a separate issue from the investigation. Monica wants reimbursed because she thinks the matter would not have been investigated by the Justice Department. I think that's a considerably harder legal standard to meet.
Tripp's settlement was curious at best with the way the DOJ caved in to her, as were any damages she allegedly suffered. She was one of the few people o be criminally indicted because of the whole mess. Neither of them shoud get anything in my opinion.
Why would he just come clean? Coming clean is not the standard practice for people who commit adultery. Period. Whether he was the president at the time or not is of no consequence. If you cheated on your wife, and someone asked you about it, your first (and strongest) instinct would be to deny it. And please, let's not start a conversation about the presidents being held to a higher moral standard. A large number of US presidents had mistresses and/or acted immorally at some time. Clinton was just the victim of a newsworthy scandal.
When you hold the highest office in the land and you are asked of your involvement before a Grand Jury and you deny it .... YOU MIGHT BE A REDNECK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That may be true but because he tried to cover things up he caused Lewenski to suffer an enourmous legal bill. We may all understand why Clinton covered it up, but he still the responsible party and should face up to his responsibilities.
Ahem, I have four children... so you know that I have had sex at least three times! BTW, did you notice that my joke was about his lying... I believe that that is exactly what the Grand Jury was convened for and, oh yes, even the Presidential Impeachment. It was the lying, stupid (to paraphrase an earlier catchphrase).
