As an Obama supporter who recently posted a blog entry about disingenuous Clinton trolls who pop up out of the blue, let me just say:

Peter Paul trash-talking about Clinton, coming from someone who has never posted on this site before, doesn't sit well with me either. Why don't you add something constructive to the conversation?

Agree, a thoughtless post of an old article from the Republican playbook.

First of all, if notice has not been provided to all defendants, then they haven't even gotten to discovery. Normally, there is a motion by defendants which gives the defendant months to response. Then the judge may allow the case to be thrown out or go to discovery.

So "A judge in Los Angeles yesterday allowed Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul to begin taking sworn testimony in his $17 million fraud suit against former President Bill Clinton, but a technicality delayed establishment of a trial date." is factually incorrect.

Another Obama supporter wanting to add his voice to saying this is right wing anti-Clinton BS.

Wish there was a way to unrecommend something.

One more Obama supporter against this kind of trolling. (any kind for that matter)

Rightwingers do love their swiftboaters!

From the link:
"Meanwhile, in his civil lawsuit, Paul is preparing a response to Sen. Clinton's motion to dismiss the case based on California's anti-SLAPP law, which protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits.
He expects the discovery phase of the suit to validate his charges as Sen. Clinton and other figures are forced to testify."

First, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The case hasn't even gotten to discovery! First, after the plaintiff (Mr. Paul) provides Service of Notice to the court (not yet done), a hearing is held and/or motions filed to dismiss the claim before this ever gets to discovery. After the judge rules, even if it were to get to discovery, a year long process, then the defendant (Clinton) will file a motion for Summary Judgment which the plaintiff gets one shot to survive. If somehow plaintiff (Mr. Paul) survives SJ, it's late-2009 before a trial date is set. Pure BS.

So we're just going to repost things from WorldNet Daily now? Who is recommended this crap?

It looks like Potus crapped twice today. Given that there are no positive comments on this post or the other one (except by Potus), I think it's pretty clear that this person is recommending his or her own posts.

I saw Peter Paul's video on this aaaages ago, and that, at least, provided absolutely no basis for his claims. Had a recording of Hillary congratulating a fundraising manager (not Paul) for unspecified good work, showed captions of legal papers, and had the managing prosecutor of the Clinton impeachment trial trash-talking Hillary.

I denounce, repudiate, reject, and say nasty things behind the back of Potus and his nasty fake-Obama-troll statements.

The Game
March 20, 2008, 7:27PM
The Game

We all love the team mentality. And we all love to be a part of the team. But being on that team we must make a choice. A choice which devides us and makes our team unique. A team we can identify with and support and nuture in good times and in bad times.

This is the American way. To stand up and voice our allegence. But in order to be for something that something must first be held to a standard and then held against all others as the better team, the right team the supreme team!

In doing so we must believe that only our team is true and righteous. But is it really? or have we played the game so long that we instinctively choose the red team or the blue team when the reality is we don't even know what our team stands for anymore than we understand the individuals in our own team! We all have been led to believe what our better angels know is wrong. Are we not all playing this game together on one team?

One vision......One goal...........One team?

Obama 08
Change We Can Believe In

If nobody minds, I don't beleive a word of anything sourced on World Nut Daily.

When you have a credible source, get back to me.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an Obama voter, contributor, and activist.

The comments on this post ratify the concern we should all have about the viability of what remains of our democracy. Well intentioned people express views they sincerely develop by consulting biased and manipulated media and ignoring facts on the public record that require the smallest amount of study, investigation and analysis.
The case of Paul v Clinton et al is the worst example of how ideology obscures reality that is plain for anyone who wants to see it to understand.
Hillary Clinton told the Washington Post, days after she participated in the biggest fundraising event of her life, that she accepted no money from Peter Paul, the man who sat with her the entire 6 hours of teh event. She told the Washington Post that Paul gave no money for this event (Event 39) and she told the Post through Howard Wolfson that she knew the event cost over $1million and was an in kind contribution.
In October, 2000, Feb and July 2001 she had her campaign report that Event 39 cost $380,000 and was a gift of Paul's public company, Stan Lee Media. In January 2005 her finance director was indicted by a federal grand jury on 3 counts of lying to the FEC for hiding the fact that Event 39 cost in excess of $1million. No one called Hillary or Wolfson as a witness to corroborate that they told the post they knew that Event 39 cost $over 41 million three months before the first false FEC report being blamed on the finance director.
The Dept of Justice Prosecutor, and the FBI agent who investigated - both said Peter Paul did give Hillary's campaign money- more than $1.2 million and it was hidden from the public by Hillary's campaign. In October,2005 Hillary's treasurer admitted hiding more than $700,000 of Paul's money and he was fined for doing what his subordinate was criminally charged with.
On January 30, 2006 Hillary caused a final FEC report to be filed which AGAIN hid Paul"s $1.2 million contribution- Hillary has never admitted she lied in the Post in 2000 to win her election and continues to hide the contribution the Justice Dept says Paul made- the BIGGEST contribution ever made to her campaign!
This isnt World Net Daily or NewsMax saying this - its the US JUstice Dept- and now Hillary will not be compelled to testify under oath about this in the Paul v Clinton case- UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION according the a judge's ruling on Friday(www.paulvclinton.com) WAKE UP PEOPLE!