What are you talking about, wring? A news report in a major newspaper is a valid cite. In this case, a generally Democratic newspaper criticized these two Democrats, which may tend to add some degree of credibility.
Fuck you. I don’t appreciate being accused of felony theft. I expect either proof or an apology.
december, you’re slipping. You missed the big scandal here:
These unpaid bills are effectively unreported campaign contributions.
Bear with me:
- The Clintons’ lawyers never expected to get paid in full;
- The lawyers expected to recoup their losses (a) through publicity and benefits to their reputation (I’d drool at the opportunity for such a high-profile, slam-dunk case - and charge a lot less than my normal rates to get the case), and (b) through the fact that the President of the United States, indeed the entire Democratic establishment, would owe them a favor.
- However, they could not offer to represent Clinton for free or openly reduce their rates, because either option would possibly violate federal ethics laws or, at the least, look very bad - like influence peddling.
- So, they charged their normal rates, and the Clintons set up their legal defense fund. It was probably understood by the lawyers (though never written down) that they would get whatever was raised by the legal defense fund, and no more.
So, Clinton and their lawyers likely conspired to do and end-run around federal election contribution laws. 'Course, given your position on campaign finance reform, that shouldn’t be a problem for you. 
Sua
One final observation. The United States Constitution protects sitting Senators and Congressmen from suits for activities committed in their official capacities.
If I were a Republican President forced to run up millions of dollars in expenses to defend myself against a virtually baseless set of attacks brought against me by Democratic members of Congress for political reasons, I’d simply make payments on account and bide my time until those Democrats retired from Congress, then sue the pants off them.
Notice any Republican Congressional leaders who have announced their retirements in the past few months?
december - **minty ** asked you to provide some evidence that the attorneys involved were actively looking to get the bill paid (vs. some other entity demonstrating that the bill hasn’t been paid). that’s in this thread.
::Getting can opener::
::Thinks about, then rethinks about, advancing the proposition that the Bill Clinton was forced to lie in a bed of his own making. And that the legal bills he incurred were not to defend “baseless attacks” and “witch hunts”::
::Puts opener away and leaves can of worms alone::
::confiscates Hamlet’s can opener::
you did good this time, but just in case, I think I should hide this.
At least the tin-foil-hat folks only pop up once a month or so.
december makes a mess two or three times a day.
Hey, I’ve got nothing against attacking the post - just don’t attack the poster.
If December’s arguments are that weak, you should be able to dismantle them without having to attack him personally.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m on a bit of a crusade lately to try and inject a bit more civility into the SDMB - it USED to be one of the best things about the board (and usually still is).
Usenet has become a crapfest precisely because the meanest, nastiest, most annoying little twerps have the run of the place. You can’t so much as ask an honest question on there anymore without some moron jumping all over you. I’d hate to see that happen to the SDMB.
Civility takes work. It’s really hard sometimes to resist the urge to choke the living shit out of someone who deserves it. But the benefits of maintaining a calm, reasonable tone are well worth it.