Back in July of 2001, scandal-ridden Congressman Gary Condit became involved in an incident that received far less news coverage than its importance dictated since it had far ranging implications for freedom of speech in this country. Kansas-based artist Terry Aley had created an artistic collage commenting on Condit's connection to the uproar involving the Congressman's missing 24-year-old concubine Chandra Levy.
Aley put the work up for sale on the Internet auction site eBay, only to have the item removed from site by eBay officials.
The reason for the removal? Condit threatened to sue for violation of his "right of publicity" under California law.
The prospect of a lawsuit would have been intimidating enough to many people such that they would have simply backed down and forgotten about the incident. Fortunately, Mr. Aley had the fortitude to write Mr. Condit back claiming that he would consider filing his own lawsuit alleging that Condit was using the powers of his office to suppress an artist's Constitutional rights. Soon after Mr. Aley sent his letter, eBay officials informed him that Mr. Condit had withdrawn his complaint and that they had agreed to reinstate the listing for the painting on their website.
In a way, it is quite a pity that Mr. Aley didn't simply sue Condit outright, instead of merely threatening to do so. Lawsuits are certainly a hassle, and of course can be quite costly. By suing Condit however, Aley would have drawn some much needed attention to the Congressman's chicanery in attempting to stifle criticism. It also would have given courts the starkest reason yet to strike down a California statute that is in desperate need of being declared unconstitutional.
While he may have backed down in the instance of Mr. Aley's artistic commentary, Gary Condit, along with his wife Carolyn, have signaled a willingness to abuse the legal system by using it as tool to suppress legitimate criticism and inquiries into their affairs. As if that weren't bad enough, they now seem to be looking towards lawsuits as their primary means of income these days. Here is partial chronology of legal action instigated by the Condits since the Aley episode:
July 26, 2001 - The National Enquirer publishes an article on their website alleging that Mrs. Condit had a heated phone conversation with Levy, days before her disappearance. Several other newspapers report on the Enquirer article later that week, including USA Today, the New York Post, Washington Times, in addition to Australia's Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun publications.
August 7, 2001 - The Enquirer republishes the article in their traditional print publication with the headlines, "Cops: Condit's Wife Attacked Chandra. The furious phone call. What the wife is hiding."
February 22, 2002 - In the last remaining weeks of her husband's campaign which finds him trailing badly in the polls, Carolyn Condit sues the National Enquirer for $10 million over the article published almost seven months earlier. Mrs. Condit claims that she had never spoken to Levy, and that the article's headline falsely implied that she physically assaulted her. (The lawsuit also recounts the timeline of the publications from July and August 2001.)The Condits employed the firm of Johnson & Rishwain to file the lawsuit in federal court near Fresno, CA. But for good measure, they use their political connections to also employ Virginia law professor Rodney Smolla. (This is on top of Gary Condit having already felt the need to employ criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos of Scott Peterson/Wynona Ryder/Michael Jackson fame regarding his role in the Levy investigation.)
With Johnson & Rishwain having offices in California, there was certainly no reason to bring in an extra attorney from Virginia to take part in case filed in California. But Smolla's inclusion was surely intended as a subtle PR coup within legal circles that Condit could afford with his contacts and resources. Smolla is a known expert in Constitutional and Libel law and had previously written about how libel laws had been abused in the past to try and crush debate concerning the civil rights movement in a book he had written entitled "Suing the Press".
By having Smolla put his name on their lawsuit the Condits were already trying to convey the unspoken message that press inquiries into Carolyn Condit's conduct while her Congressman husband was at the center of a missing person's investigation should not be compared to any such "lofty" goals as a debate over civil rights. Smolla now lends his name to the notion that speculation and conjecture regarding Condit’s role in Levy's disappearance should be considered illegitimate and unfit for public discussion.
February 26, 2002 - Lawyers for Carolyn Condit issue a "Demand for Retraction" letter to NBC over an episode of Law & Order that aired earlier in the month. The episode in question contained a fictional story line featuring the disappearance of a 24-year-old aide to a state senator from her Manhattan apartment. The show's ending implies that the wife of another official was involved in her death.Condit's lawyers insist that the show is a thinly veiled reference to their client and threaten to sue the show unless a retraction and apology is aired at the start of the next episode. NBC and the show's producers reject the letter and no legal action is filed.
March 5, 2002 - Gary Condit loses his primary reelection bid to remain a U.S. Congressman.
July 10, 2002 - U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger issues a ruling that refuses to throw out the Enquirer lawsuit and allows it to go forward for trial. In the ruling, Wagner staggeringly rules that Carolyn Condit is not a public figure (despite clear evidence to the contrary), and further makes the baffling claim that the Enquirer is not to be considered a "newspaper" for the purposes of California law.The Washington Post wrote a lengthy profile of Carolyn Condit and her Public Relations / Damage Control role after news of the Levy affair broke. The paper concluded that she had become “a local ambassador for her husband”. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Wagner did not even see fit to label Carolyn Condit as a “limited purpose public figure”. (It is unclear exactly what evidence the Enquirer presented in its arguments, but it borders on the inconceivable that this ruling was the result of the Enquirer’s failure to present a proper case for such a relatively simple finding.)
Judge Wagner’s insult doesn’t stop with his shoddy analysis of who constitutes a “public figure” for purposes of libel law. In rejecting The Enquirer's claim that the lawsuit should be dismissed under a California libel-defense statute, Wagner further writes the jaw-dropping statement that, "The disappearance of Ms. Levy does not concern the performance of duties by Mr. Condit in his capacity as a public official. The criminal investigation of the disappearance of Ms. Levy is not necessarily a political or community issue in which public opinion and input is inherent and desirable…" (?!!)
August 19, 2002 - No doubt emboldened by Judge Wagner's ruling, Carolyn Condit sues the Star tabloid for $15-million, claiming that it knowingly published a false story reporting that she threatened to commit suicide over her husband's relationship with the murdered intern Chandra Levy.
December 16, 2002 - Gary Condit sues writer Dominick Dunne in federal court in New York for defamation over comments made nearly a year earlier suggesting that he may have been involved with Levy's abduction. The lawsuit is filed just 4 days before the New York statute of limitations expires and asks for $11 million in damages.
July 2003 - The Enquirer settles the Carolyn Condit suit out of court. The settlement also apparently applies to the Star lawsuit from August 2002.While the terms of the settlement are declared confidential, speculation in some quarters suggests that the Condits walked away with anywhere from thousands to millions of dollars. Carolyn Condit also receives a formal apology from the Enquirer as part of the settlement and the Condit's then move to Arizona.
Roughly two weeks after the Enquirer/Star settlement, Carolyn Condit files suit in New Mexico against USA Today, the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun newspapers for reprinting the allegations from the original Enquirer article. Condit's attorney states that the complaints were filed in New Mexico because of its three-year statute of limitations concerning libel claims, whereas California's one-year statute of limitations has already expired. The lawsuits seek "unspecified" damages.
December 2003 – Taking a cue from his wife, Gary Condit now slaps the Enquirer, Star, and Globe tabloids with a flurry of defamation suits asking for a ridiculous $209 million.
April 2004 – Carolyn Condit voluntarily dismisses her July 2003 lawsuits against the Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun newspapers (both of which are based overseas).However, Gary Condit’s lawsuit against Dominick Dunne manages to survive a dismissal motion. In ruling on the motion though, the judge said it was possible Dunne could prevail later in the legal process - suggesting that Dunne was speaking on a matter of public controversy about a public official.
August 3, 2004 (approx.) – A federal judge dismisses Carolyn Condit’s lawsuit against USA Today, saying that New Mexico had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The judge tellingly writes that Carolyn Condit's interest in litigating in New Mexico "appears to be a belief that this forum may offer more generous statute of limitations. Indeed, it is possible that New Mexico may be the only jurisdiction in which Condit's suit is not time-barred." In dismissing the case, the judge further stated that the case's lack of connection with New Mexico was striking.
August 18, 2004 – Gary Condit settles with the Enquirer, Star, and Globe publications out of court. Details of the settlement remained confidential. Upon hearing the news, Dominick Dunne’s lawyer says, "I know Condit settled before he had to answer any questions under oath. I wonder about any connection between those two facts."
People have often wondered what a lifelong politician like Gary Condit would do for a living if he were ever thrown out of office.
Now we know.
Condit and his family are intent on suing every critic and investigative journalist into oblivion. Apart from the abuse of the legal system, the Condits' new found vocation also happens to pose serious problems for First Amendment and journalistic freedoms in this country.
Judge Wagner deserves his share of criticism for his ridiculous ruling in not tossing Condit's case in the first place. But apart from the Condit’s themselves, much of the blame must fall on the Enquirer for not appealing its ruling and then settling a frivolous case. In so doing, it has encouraged the Condits and potential future litigants to continue a campaign of using courts to silence news coverage that they don't like. Although the amounts still remain unclear, the first settlement may very well have provided them with seed money to expand their litigious campaign.
Just as in nature, feeding a shark in the legal world only causes it to engage in a greater feeding frenzy rather than satisfying it.
Make no mistake about it. These lawsuits have not been about the Condits' attempts to redress legitimate wrongs. These suits are about using the courts as leverage to coerce parties into softening their criticisms and investigations of a shameless political family that will contemplate any legal tactic in their attempts to restore power and income streams cut off by Gary Condit's election loss. Rather than embodying a quest for justice, these actions are merely another offshoot of Gary Condit’s self-obsessed narcissism.
The supposed purpose of libel suits is to receive compensation for damage to one's reputation in the community. Mrs. Condit's reputation may indeed be trashed, but its not because of anything the Enquirer or other publications may have published. Let's leave aside the fact that nobody seriously believes that Mrs. Condit was responsible for Levy's disappearance, regardless of any selective interpretation of a headline taken out of context. I don't know about you, but I would expect a wife to attack someone having an affair with her husband - verbally or otherwise. So a charge of “attacking” a husband’s concubine should hardly seem to be a charge that is damaging to one’s reputation. Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned in that regard.
Mrs. Condit's reputation problems have stemmed from the fact that she seems so eager to defend a husband who has humiliated and used her for the purpose of projecting a certain campaign image. The reason that she has the PR problems she does is because she has freely chosen to be a part of her husband's cynical rehabilitation campaign. This campaign involves a multi-pronged effort to keep a lid on information that public has a right to know about concerning their elected officials. It is no accident that Mrs. Condit waited a full six months after the Enquirer's publication to file suit against it. The suit's timing corresponded to the last remaining weeks of a political campaign that found her husband trailing desperately in the polls. They knew that their only shot was to play the role of victims at the hands of an overzealous media. (The Condit’s had undoubtedly read the earlier poll information that showed Gary Condit with high unfavorable ratings - although the voters in his specific district were sharply divided on the question of if the media had acted responsibly or not.)
Regardless of Mrs. Condit's perceived reputation, she had almost no chance of winning her lawsuit if the Enquirer had been willing to mount a continued defense.
The fact of the matter is that most courts don't like libel suits. It's one thing to muse about abstract theories concerning the value of one's "reputation" in the community. But when you put such a grievance in concrete form on paper and present it to court asking for millions of dollars as compensation, many judges can't help but conjure up images of a playground tiff among kindergarteners. Judge Wagner might have been an exception in this instance, but it is extremely doubtful that an appellate court would have been as well - if only the Enquirer had showed some spine.
So what now?
Despite being the only remaining defendant in this charade, Dominick Dunne can play the hero’s role by taking steps to turn the tables on his accuser. In so doing, he would perform a public service not only by potentially shedding more light on the Condit/Levy mystery, but also by sending a strong message to future sue-happy individuals that abusing the legal system will come at a steep price. Hopefully, there is still enough time left in this case’s legal process to do so. Though I suspect Dunne and his attorneys are in no need of any free advice from outside quarters, there are a few strategies that I would try to impress upon them if so asked (and if they are bold enough):
First, be aggressive in collecting as much evidence as possible in your defense. Many lawyers mistakenly think that the first line of defense in a libel suit is proving that their client did not act "maliciously" in publishing allegations against a public figure, or "negligently" in the case of a non-public figure. They would be wrong in either case. The first line of defense in any libel suit should be trying to prove that the allegations in question are in fact true (no matter how fanciful some may think them to be).
In the context of the Condit libel suits, this would allow for quite a wide investigation into that family's affairs.
The lawyers for the Enquirer claimed that they deposed Gary Condit and didn’t get very far. This time, think outside of the box. Don’t just depose Condit. Depose his entire family.
Get them under oath and explore every facet about what they knew about Levy including Gary Condit's relationship with her, Carolyn Condit's knowledge of or contact with her, the nature of the Condit marriage, and other relationships that Condit might have had that caused Carolyn to blow up. Cast as wide of a net as possible.
Subpoena all phone records from both the Condit family as well as Chandra Levy for the several months leading up to Levy's disappearance. The phone records should not be confined to Condit's home in California. They should demand all phone records from all residences of the entire Condit family, including cel phone records.
Find out where those listed phone numbers go to. Then consider deposing anyone on that list that might have information on Condit’s relationship with Levy, his family, or others that might shed light on the issue in the broadest possible sense.
After that, go ahead and depose anyone who has ever been rumored to have been linked with Condit sexually. Try and push the envelope of discovery limits here. The judge has already suggested that he will give you at least some leeway in this regard. Depose the Levy family and have them remind the court (and the public) the amount of disdain that they hold the Congressman in for abusing his position of power in getting Chandra to provide sexual favors for him.
If Condit actually denies even ever having an affair with Levy, go ahead and track down every one of her friends and acquaintances who she might have confided in. Go ahead and depose them to expose Condit to his lies and obfuscations. Start with Levy’s Aunt, Linda Zamsky who is clearly under the impression that her niece had an affair with Condit. Be sure to keep in mind that he previously refused to answer questions regarding extra-marital affairs to reporters. (Make sure the court knows that too. Obfuscation of questions lead to legitimate speculations. The greater excuse people have to speculate on public matters, the less likely a court will find an environment of “actual malice”…but more on that later.)
Also remember that President Clinton flatly denied his affair with Monica Lewisnky because he wrongly figured that he and Monica were the only two people who would know the truth. Show that Condit is playing the same game here, only he is using an even more cynical tactic since he knows the only other person who can contradict him with direct eyewitness evidence about his affair is dead. The more contradictions that can be shown, the less chance anyone will think that he is entitled to money for a “damaged reputation”. And let’s not also forget that any “contradictions” in Condit’s testimony will be from statements made under oath with at least the theoretical threat of a perjury charge.
After deposing Levy’s friends and acquaintances, try and depose all of Condit’s friends and contacts at every Middle Eastern Embassy that Condit had visited during his Congressional tenure. Admittedly, many of these witnesses might be able to avoid depositions or interrogatories through some form of claimed immunity. But the mere notion that they might be dragged into an inquiry regarding the Condit affair might start its own dynamic which puts extra pressure on the Ex-Congressman to reconsider pursuing his case. Besides, Dunne’s inability to subpoena such potential witnesses could ultimately help with his defense that he did not act with legal “malice”.
These lawsuits provide an opportunity for Dunne and journalists to delve into Condit's life using much more invasive tools than standard investigative journalism. You would think that a defendant like the Enquirer would have considered that in deciding to settle its case prematurely.
Remember all of the Jane Does that were questioned in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against President Clinton? Dunne would do well to use that playbook. He can find out every alleged affair that Gary Condit might have had and track those people down. Then they will be able to force every such woman to state under penalty of perjury the nature of their affair with Gary Condit and his specific sexual proclivities.
Condit might move to exclude such testimony from ultimately reaching a trial stage, but it would be a much higher hurdle for him to prevent such witnesses from merely being deposed outside of the courthouse. Once the testimony is down on paper, there is always the possibility of it being released publicly sometime in the future.
Casting a wide net in the discovery process can be an expensive process to be sure. That unfortunate realty will likely prove to be the largest threat to an individual such as Dunne – even more so than the unlikely prospect of a large court judgment against him that stands up to appeal. As with all defendants, he needs to weigh the economic costs of settlement versus the financial burdens that the system puts on a defendant in the court system. (While the Enquirer no doubt went through the same considerations, one has to wonder why they still chose not to appeal the trail court’s ruling since they likely had financial resources through their insurance. They are accustomed to paying large sums for news information. It is curious as to why they didn’t see their legal defense as merely newsgathering for their publication through other means. I’d be curious to know the thinking of the Enquirer counsel on this point. There may be some considerations that the public is not privy to. But with the ill-considered confidentiality agreements, we probably will never know.)
Once you have collected all of the testimony and facts from your discovery, release as much it to the public as you can. I don’t know who released part of Condit’s deposition that has already been taken, but this is a good start.
Expect Condit to pull every legal string to prevent any embarrassing testimony or evidence from being released. Since much of the evidence will deal with the time when Condit was a Congressman, you would think that courts would realize that the public has a right to know this information. After all, a former U.S. Congressman is asking another branch of the federal government to order a private citizen to fork over a boatload of money to him. Unfortunately though, many courts are too quick to order evidence and depositions sealed simply because it can be embarrassing for one of the parties or witnesses. (I could write an even lengthier article on why I feel courts often abuse the use of sealed filings, secret proceedings and gag orders – but I will save that topic for another time.)
There are strategies that one can use to circumvent overly restrictive gag orders. Many judges still aren’t hip to the idea that information is too fungible in today’s tech-driven world. Let’s say a judge orders that a deposition transcript be sealed. One idea would be to file a motion related to the deposition (say perhaps, a motion to compel testimony from a witness who refuses to answer a question). The normal procedure would be to attach the relevant page or pages of the transcript related to your motion as an exhibit of evidence. This time though, go ahead and attached the entire deposition transcript, then go ahead and file your motion through standard channels such that they would be accessible to the media requesting the court file from the clerk. Find a co-worker in your office who has a friend of a friend in the media who might just so happen to tell the media friend about the filed motion containing the full transcript. The fact that the full transcript was attached and filed openly was clerical error as we all know. Two words: “Plausible Deniability”.
Of course I am not suggesting that you directly disobey a court order. That would be unethical (at least in the “legal” sense of the term). I am merely pointing out theoretical ways that information can manage to circumvent overbroad (and sometimes even arguably unconstitutional) judicial controls. Hopefully, you won’t need to contemplate these notions all that much since a fair judge would recognize that turnabout is fair play.
But enough of tactics for now. Let’s get back to strategy.
You need to remind the court that Condit previously threatened to sue newspapers for libel for merely reporting that Condit had been having an affair with Levy. He should also remind the court of Condit’s previous efforts to try and bully witnesses into signing false affidavits. Once again, this might not be deemed directly “relevant” by the court in terms of the current lawsuit against Dunne, but this can still subtly play out in Dunne’s favor in getting the judge to see the bigger picture when it comes time for Condit to prove his case. After all, if it is proven that a plaintiff is willing to sue over statements that most believe to be true (i.e., the affair with Levy), and it is also shown that he is willing to get witnesses to commit perjury as to testimony regarding his previous actions, reasonable jurists should be able to conclude that he comes to the table with unclean hands in a libel suit.
The Prime Directive in this instance is that you want to make the legal process itself far more painful for the Condits than any potential rewards could bring them down the line.
No doubt, this will be a messy and distasteful process for everyone involved. But if a plaintiff honestly feels that his reputation had been unfairly impugned by false claims such that he deserves a couple of million dollars for it, then those who made the claims are entitled to a vigorous defense. In this case, that means allowing Dunne an opportunity to prove that Condit is a lying, unscrupulous sexual deviant who is willing to abuse the court system to help silence his critics. Once that is shown to be the case, his “reputation” shouldn’t be worth enough to deserve compensation for – even if specific claims about a conspiracy to kidnap and get rid of Levy turn out to be a pure speculative fantasy.
After you have obtained some useful information through discovery, file a motion to have the case be decided through summary judgment. Even someone as brazen as Gary Condit would be unable seriously argue that he is not a “public figure” for purposes of his lawsuit. Condit will therefore have to show at least some evidence suggesting “actual malice” in order to overcome a summary judgment motion - knowing that such defense motions are granted in a majority of libel lawsuits.
A quick note here - Don’t just assume that judges really understand the meaning of “actual malice” in a libel case. Even many veteran lawyers will (knowingly or not) end up distorting the description of the term in their summary judgment briefs.
I would respectfully submit that the best, most complete, most accurate case-law definition of “actual malice” ever printed is to be found in the 7th Circuit’s J.H. Desnick v. ABC. Feel free to quote liberally from it. Copy the relevant paragraphs verbatim. It will save you a lot of time when constructing your brief and decrease the likelihood that Condit will be able to impress the much broader “tort” definition of “malice” on an unwary judge. (Don’t worry about the fact that your court is outside of the 7th Circuit. The definition of “malice” is a federal concept mandated by the Constitution. In this instance, court decisions are pretty much interchangeable between circuits.)
Go ahead and argue the evidence (or lack thereof) regarding the “malice” issue. But also be sure to subtly argue the bigger picture in this case to the judge. Document the lies and inconsistencies by Condit in the past. The intimidation of potential witnesses. The forum shopping to get around statute of limitation problems. The history of attempting to sue everyone in sight who posited even the slightest speculation of what may have happened in light of Condit’s refusal to be more forthcoming to the public about his relationship with Levy. Condit’s history of threatening legal action even to artists and television producers who wish to state an opinion regarding Condit’s character. And once again, be sure that the judge knows just what the Levy family (still grieving over their murdered loved one) thinks of Congressman Gary Condit in as blunt language as they can muster in a legal document (and make it clear that their opinions do not stem from any comments that you may have made about the Condit affair).
Explain that if Condit were to succeed in this lawsuit, it would open the door for Presidents to sue critics who have often engaged in speculation that is far more unlikely than anything that Dominick Dunne has said about an elected official.
Find a way to subtly ask the judge: As outrageous as some of these claims can get, do we really want to live in a country where each successive President can successfully haul Oliver Stone into court and reap a financial windfall? Some might. But hopefully most don’t (And while some might be tempted to say “yes” specifically in regards to Mr. Stone’s fate, hopefully they will be able to see the bigger picture as well as to why this would be a bad idea.)
Also, be sure to remind the judge that Condit’s reputation was already well trashed months before you opened your mouth about him. (And for that matter, evidence clearly shows that Condit’s reputation was trashed even before the National Enquirer publications in late July 2001 which led to the separate and earlier libel suit against them.)
Explain to the court that Condit “has a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details” of his affairs “than by suing those whose reporting (includes) some less than favorable inferences” about him. (And be sure to check the look on the face of Condit’s attorney L. Lin Wood when you use that quote – he should be familiar with it since he first encountered those words when his libel suit on behalf of the parents of JonBenet Ramsey was tossed out of court. That was another instance of public speculation being directly caused by people who refused to be as forthcoming as they could be to the public regarding a murder investigation. Hopefully it will give Wood some nice déjà vu.)
In the mind of a wise judge, all of these factors can potentially add up to give you an extra edge in a summary judgment motion – even if the elements only deal tangentially with the specific complaint you are defending in this instance.
Should it become one of those rare libel cases to reach a jury, this same strategy will be in order as far as what you want to remind those jurors about.
There are some out there who want Condit to succeed in this lawsuit because they don’t like the fact that the public should be able to speculate on matters when government officials decide to stonewall the public. They too are offering advice to Condit and his attorneys. While you naturally shouldn’t dismiss their plan out of hand, I still wouldn’t sweat it too much. Their analysis ultimately rests on what they think the concept of “malice” should be, rather than what it actually is (if I have more time in the future I’ll be happy to explain this in further detail). Their arguments are ultimately a mere plea to return to a previous era when powerful men with financial resources could more easily silence their critics. Just stick with the game plan and you should be fine.
The Enquirer had the best chance to deal with the problem of a Congressional scoundrel who now makes his financial living through lawsuits. They had the resources and the motivation (i.e., news discovery via the judicial process) to put a stop to this once and for all in the appellate courts. But for whatever reason, they chose to punt. So now it is up to you Mr. Dunne. With the financial costs of the legal system, nobody could fault you too much for making an attempt at a modest settlement. But if you choose to be bold, you can help stop a megalomaniac, strike a strong blow for free speech in this country, and help protect many potential future defendants who wish to post their own theories when faced with information vacuums created by stonewalling politicians.
As they say, the ball is in your court.
Update on Condit's deposition here.
Update II (Feb. 14, 2005): Condit claims to be sick in order to back out of his scheduled second deposition.
Feb. 18, 2005: More recent comments from one of the Condit Stepford children speaking out about the case.
Update III (Mar. 14, 2005): Condit has apparently settled with Dunne so that he doesn't have to be subjected to a more thorough legal deposition which would expose some facts that he would rather keep secret.
He also doesn't have to lie under oath again, like the whopper he laid on Dunne's attorney when he said he never conducted polls during his campaign. Or the time when he insisted under oath that he never had an affair with Levy.
As usual, the financial terms of the settlement are "undisclosed". I realize that it's easy to say since it's not my time and money on the line, but I only hope that Dunne didn't cave and only offered him a nominal amount.
Posted by Justin Levine at January 14, 2005 07:31 AM | TrackBack