« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Breaking News! : Hillary Clinton Required to Testify in November to FEC Fraud!
To All Super Delegates! : This is very disturbing news!
In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!
While Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Barabara Streisand, Cher, Stan Lee, Brad Pitt, Mike Wallace, Larry King et al may be called to testify and be deposed starting in May, Hillary alone has been protected from explaining her role in her husband’s fraud charges.
In an astonishing ruling by the Judge, Hillary Clinton may NOT be deposed about her role in the illegal solicitation and cover up of the largest contribution made to her Senate campaign until after the presidential election. This is the same contribution Hillary denied knowing about or receiving when Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post asked her specifically about it and her relationship with the donor, Peter Paul, in August 2000. Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005, or hiding from her and her campaign. Its the same contribution the FEC fined her campaign for hiding from the voters in three false FEC reports by her treasurer between 2000-2006. (www.paulvclinton.com)
Equally surprising as the ruling was the judge’s request to Hillary defense lawyer David Kendall to “say hello to his ( Judge Munoz”) friend Bill, also a partner in Kendall’s law firm”
The decision to shield Hillary Clinton from civil discovery for an additional seven months, thereby delaying a long postponed trial, was made by the judge on his own, without any request by Hillary or her lawyer to make the ruling. No discussion was permitted by Paul’s lawyer before the decision was made. Judge Munoz’ unilateral decision effectively saved the floundering campaign and hopes of Hillary Clinton to win her party’s Presidential nomination!
Had Senator Clinton be forced to testify under oath, as a material witness and beneficiary of the fraud that her husband is being sued for before the Democratic Convention, her remote chances for being nominated the party candidate would have been unquestionably destroyed.
Hillary has never publicly commented on the case in which she was a defendant from 2003-2006. Nor has Hillary ever commented on the videotaped phone call she made to Peter Paul the day he began spending more than $1 million for her Senate campaign, the false statements she made through Howard Wolfson to the Washington Post denying working with Paul or receiving any contributions from him, the sworn Declaration she made under oath where she refused to deny any of Paul’s allegations, the role her White House aide Kelly Craighead played in coordinating Paul’s expenditures and befirending Paul’s Japanese business partner during a White House visit and many other unanswered questions of illegal conduct.
The illegalities detailed in Paul’s civil complaint and FEC complaint caused Hillary’s finance director to be criminally indicted and tried in 2005 by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity (the same group that prosecuted Scooter Libby) for hiding the cost of a fundraiser paid for by Paul. Paul’s FEC allegations forced Hillary’s campaign to admit to the FEC in October, 2005, that it violated FEC reporting requirements by hiding more than $700,000 received from Paul that Hillary personally said she never received.
Hillary’s sworn deposition is expected to reveal numerous illegalities directed by Hillary, with Bill’s help, to win and keep her Senate seat and avoid being accountable to the law. The judge’s sua sponte decision to delay Hillary’s deposition until after the presidential election denies the public’s right to know what a presidential candidate and a former president have done to undermine the Rule of Law and the Constitution by corrupting the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity and its very Chief, Noel Hillman, federal judge A Howard Matz appointed by Bill Clinton (who deceived the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director by telling the jury that Hillary was not involved in any way) and the FEC itself which aided and abetted Hillary filing a fourth false FEC report in January, 2006 that omitted any reference to the $1.2 million contribution the FBI and DOJ swore Paul made.
The Department of Justice prosecutor in the May, 2005 criminal case stated that $1.2 million was personally contributed by Paul at the request of Bill Clinton as part of an employment deal for Clinton’s post White House rainmaking services and was confirmed by FBI Special Agent David Smith as explained by Dept of Justice Prosecutor Dan Schwaber (pages 55,57,72) during the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May 2005.
Hillary’s treasurer was later forced to admit filing the false FEC reports to hide more than $700,000 paid by Paul, and fined $35,000 (the only fine imposed on Hillary’s campaign) yet Hillary has never answered one question to the media or the courts about these charges!
In fact, Hillary’s sworn Declaration in response to Paul’s sworn allegations constituted a legal admission to Paul’s charges becauseHillary refused to deny any of the allegations!
Strangely, Hillary admitted to the Washington Post in August 2000 knowing that the fundraising event Paul produced and paid for in August, 2000 cost more than $1 million- yet Rosen was indicted on three counts of hiding this fact from Hillary’s campaign causing 3 false FEC reports to be filed!
The cover-up of the original felony violations of the federal election law committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton (they solicited and coordinated Paul’s $1 million plus contribution as a quid pro quo for Clinton’s post White House employment) have resulted in a corruption of every branch of the government by the Clinton’s- all in plain view of the public and with the collusion of the media and the government. Watergate seems insignificant in the breadth of its public corruption in comparison with what has become the mother of all coverups orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.
Comments (66)
If the media is worth its salt, then along with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Lapel pins and other exaggerated issues attached to Barack Obama; Airplane-gate, war mongering, temperament problems, and looming Keating 5 memories for McCain; they will print, highlight, and expose this issue for what it is---an example of the deeper and very dangerous reasons why the Clintons can not return to the White House. The way they are handling Hillary's campaign is a mircrocosm of the way they handled this case---lie, cheat, steal for the victory and rely on your power to cover up any consequence of your actions. Characterize yourself as shocked that others would think so poorly of you, brag that you are still standing after people rummaging through your negative stuff--but have your fingers crossed behind your back hoping that the truth doesn't surface before you try to lie your way into the hearts of the Superdelegates. Most disgusting of all--you consciously manipulate the part of the public that you think is too unsophisticated to think for themselves--"my heart so bleeds for the blue collar worker who I hunt with...no drink with...no work in a small business with.....no spend summers on the lake with....no bake cookies with....no never bake cookies with"...oh the shame of it all Hillary and Bill.
April 28, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK GAWD FOR THE VETTING!
The Clinton Crime Wave is finally coming to an end!
TIP: look in her overnight...there is 8 lbs. of Colombian snort and the rifle she shot Vince Foster with.
Sincerely
Jerry Falwell
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
the clintons are coming to an end.
their crimes will be prosecuted by the justice dept under president Obama.
April 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since people don't read all the comments, I am sticking a comment with this link right up at the top:
A factcheck.org article that debunks this nonsense.
April 28, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
factcheck.org is a ruse. Hillary's senate campaign finance officials were CONVICTED of campaign fraud already for this event. So much for it being debunked.
April 29, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look I used to be one of those who said "Ignore the Peter Paul thing, it is no different than the Vince foster smear" and I too referenced the Factcheck page that appears to debunk the video.
But then I read the actual case. Peter Paul is a scumbag, that is for sure. But when you actually read the case, there is just so much backstory that is hard to ignore. Bill and Hillary showing their true colors in this campaign is now making hard for me to dismiss it entirely. If there really was no basis in fact, or Paul had no evidence whatsoever, this case would have been done already. Now that Bill's dealings with Columbia trade have come to light, not to mention previous deals brokering with the Saudi's, it makes the case somewhat probable.
Read the official legal case..it is a juciy bit for sure. http://www.paulvclinton.com/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf
April 29, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or you can follow this link and hear her make the call proving she knew all about this, and is guilty as hell.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
April 29, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton told the Washington Post twice in August 2000 that Peter Paul never gave her any money for her Senate campaign and she vowed through Howard Wolfson she would take no money- a week later her finance director- using her letterhead- faxed Paul's controller asking that he wire untraceable securities worth $100,000 to her campaign! The Department of Justice later stated that Paul personally gave Hillary Clinton's campaign more than $1.2 million- 4 times more than any other reported donor!
These are facts- see www.paulvclinton.com for links to the documents and court transcript
April 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the legal system and the MSM will facilitate the possible election of a POTUS who likely participated in felonious acts? Wow, some kind of democracy, huh? The Clinton campaign is becoming more reminiscent of the Bush/Cheney horror each and every day.
April 28, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, with Cheney being the president.
April 28, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Courts regularly avoid hearing cases in the middle of a political campaign. Avoiding political controversy is the norm for court behavior. That is one of the irregularities in the Siegelman case in Alabama. The charges were brought and the case tried by republican operatives during a political campaign.
April 28, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if the courts avoid it, the media shouldn't. I was talking with friends over the weekend who knew nothing about this. Sad. But I guarantee to GOP knows ALL about it.
April 28, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what Genghis and others have posted, there's no good evidence that Hillary did anything illegal—just like Obama and Rezko. In my biased opinion, there's more evidence of unethical behavior here than with Rezko, but it is a biased opinion, and is not really incredibly damning even then.
In short, the media should give this no more attention than they gave Rezko. ;)
April 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it the same attention as Rezko?
But this is soooooo complicated and hard to understand and there's no one with a funny-sounding foreign name involved. No, better just ignore it. Besides, she's been fully vetted. Everyone knows that.
April 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen....!!! Funny too...:)
April 28, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and no "slum lord".
April 28, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben- I read a thread in March in which Genghis and others were calling someone out on this issue. Perhaps they will chime in again. I've read about the Peter Paul allegations, don't really remember anything except that someone from Clinton's Senatorial Campaign was convicted for filing erroneous FEC campaing finance filings ( I believe) but I also see the other side which would point to dishonest behavior on the part of the Clintons. Sadly , that behaviour is not difficult to imagine.
Not long after that post a friend sent this clip to me via email. Peter Paul is certainly Hollywood so the "production" quality of the story in his favor is certainly good, but regardless, the footage on the clip is at a minimum gross and at the maximum damning. The reality is probably somewhere in between, like most things are...but the minimum is enough for me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
Make of it what you will. My vote in this primary was determined long before seeing this video clip. The conjecture of wrongdoing merely confirms my instincts towards HRC. Just another data point in my spreadsheet of reasons not to vote for her.
April 28, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't remember the details either, but I remember being convinced that a lot of the footage was taken out of context, or worse, put in improper context.
That's part of why I'm hesitant to jump in, as I'm afraid that confirmation bias might be affecting me, as well.
In short, I don't need any new reasons to prefer Obama to Clinton, and if this gets over-hyped and turns out to be as bogus as many are claiming it is, it could do more harm than good to the Obama campaign. (I say could rather than would, because I'm still amazed at the traction that Rezko seems to get.)
April 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abroadabroad, have you read this?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html
There are of course many legitimate criticisms to be made about Clinton, but this isn't one of them.
April 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read it after you posted it. Thanks for that. I hadn't bothered to look for any info about this case. As I said the video clip turned up in my inbox. All this discussion still doesn't change my basic view; it wouldn't surprise me either way if Paul turned out to be a total scumbag or if it turned out that the Clintons were. As I said, the footage is kind of gross. Just another data point...
Hollywood wannabe or not Paul seems to have gotten in the room with the Clintons on more than one occasion, unless his hollywood production skills are extra sweet and he has doctored all of that footage. Maybe it's plainly evident to the trained production eye that he did that.
This is a civil trial in any event so the worst the Clintons have to lose is some money. It is my sincere hope that she'll lose the presidency independent of this distraction.
April 28, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can believe that or your lying eyes and see her do it on tape and is guilty as hell. They recorded the phone call of her doing this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
April 29, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abroadabroad, I can't even begin to imagine why I am posting on POTUS OBAMA's blog--it's an embarrassing admission that I even clicked on it. But I saw what you wrote and I had to respond.
You said, "Peter Paul is certainly Hollywood so the 'production' quality of the story in his favor is certainly good."
I don't want to quibble over production values, but I want to defuse one myth about this whole thing: Peter Paul is NOT Hollywood. He's Hollywood-wannabe, who flew into town with a moderate amount of money and talked his way into a low-level production company and manipulated the stock to make more money. The notion that he could convince Bill Clinton to become associated with Stan Lee Productions is ridiculous. Stan Lee Productions was a nothing little company with no clout or respect in the industry. Major studios (I believe DreamWorks was one) were wooing Bill Clinton to join them at this very time. Associating Peter Paul with Hollywood is an insult to Hollywood--and that's saying a lot.
Disclaimer: in a former life, Allsburg worked at a low-level production company, but sadly, did not manipulate its stock to make any money at all.
April 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I obviously don't spend enough time on these blogs learning all of the biases of the participating characters because I have no idea about what Potus Obama has written in the past, nor will I be curious to follow up on it now. And re-reading what I posted I'm a bit puzzled at all of the attention. I basically said the video was at a minimum gross and that the story was not a factor in my voting position. True or not. As for whether Paul is truely Hollywood, well, my understanding is that he organized a big fundraising gala with some famous people in Hollywood. I don't think my characterization was wildly off-base given that starting point...but I am certainly not experienced in production as you are.
April 28, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not an attack, just a clarification. I don't take issue with what you posted, except to say that Peter Paul was posturing as a Hollywood type, but that he's really always just been a smooth talker who knows how to take advantage of a situation. He never had Hollywood bona fides.
April 28, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
**Actually, it's NOTHING like Obama and Rezko, babycakes!
April 28, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which can only confirm that the GOP wants Hillary to be the nominee so they can go to town on this issue in the G.E. Otherwise, McCain & Co. would be harping on it now.
This would almost definitely render her unelectable in the fall. I suspect a large portion of the electorate would be turned off by yet ANOTHER Clinton legal battle brewing and the GOP will hammer this home full throttle.
Very troublesome...
April 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the GOP wants Hillary to win because they hate McCain and McCain is prone to going his own way. Hillary, now that she has become a DINO, has no problem taking money from every lobbyist who offers her money, Wink winks with the Canadians on NAFTA, assures the insurance companies they will get their profits and beats the war drum better than any GOPer ever could.
Nah...the GOP bets are all on Hillary. Fox News is Fair and Balanced. There is no way McAuliffe would say that unless the GOP and the Clintons have a deal of some sort.
April 29, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooof!
April 28, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always written this off as a political smear/CT stuff. It could have merit, however when Peter Paul is pushing the story all over the net himself it just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
April 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't overstate this case.
But really, Stan "The Man" Lee is involved?
April 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a "vote changer?" ;-)
April 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM readers pride themselves on paying attention to critical journalism. If Greg Sargent or Eric Kleefeld post the slightest slant in an a headline or regurgitate a talking point without critical analysis, half the cafe is up in arms.
Yet here we have an article posted twice in the same day, neither one a drop of critical analysis behind it.
Where did this damning piece of journalism come from? Neither Dan Mason, author of the other post, nor Potus Obama has bothered to tell you. No one has bothered to ask. You all just happily plonk your thumbs on the recommend button, and if you're particularly spunky, you might write a whining diatribe on the MSM conspiracy.
Well I'll be darned. Here it is. On the front page of Peter Paul's website: http://www.peterfpaul.com/
Surely an objective source if there ever was one. Perhaps that explains why the article is so calmly objective, another fact that no one of you great critics of journalism have bothered to note.
If anyone has the slightest interest in stretching their brains beyond the first paragraph of the latest Clinton smear, you can read a bit about what kind of schmuck Peter Paul is here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html
And here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401150.html
By the way, anyone spot Dan Mason's website on his profile?
http://www.paulvclinton.com
Shocked, really I'm shocked.
Wake up people. And quit congratulating yourselves for your ability to see through journalistic B.S. You only see B.S. when it conflicts with your own preconceptions.
April 28, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although after reading what you posted previously I'm convinced this is a bogus issue, the question remains: is it a bigger bogus issue than Rezko?
So, I agree with you that in a perfect world it'd be getting exactly the attention it's getting in the MSM, do you find there's a different standard going on considering how much attention has been paid to Rezko?
(I suppose it's a bit like asking whose imaginary friend can beat up whose. Cthulu for the win!)
April 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As often proclaimed on this site, the media is a big fat parrot. I'm sure that if the Obama campaign made a public fuss about this stuff, the media would pick it up. Because if a campaign levels an accusation, then it becomes ipso facto an important election issue. But of course, the Obama campaign won't touch this.
That said, in the Rezko case, there's a real criminal trial, and Obama has had a long term association with the defendant. In this case, all we've got is a civil case against the Clintons for a single event, filed by a convicted con-man with ax to grind. I'm not saying that the media should be covering Rezko, but the cases are not equivalent.
April 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, although I'd clarify that the civil case isn't against both Clintons but against Bill Clinton.
April 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all those who make their minds up without doing their own analysis- please ignore this comment and continue parroting the Clinton War Room Mantra that Peter Paul is an ex felon. The fact that Paul was the top donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign (confirmed by the DOJ Prosecutor in the criminal trial of Hillary's finance director) that Paul's FEC complaint against the Clinton campaign resulted in the admission that her treasurer hid more than $700,000 in Paul's contributions from 3 FEC reports and violated the law- the fact that when Hillary filed a sworn Declaration in response to paul's allegations of her illegalities, Hillary denied NONE of the allegations, but swore that she could not remember certain conversations that she had with Paul (which Paul took a polygraph test on and passed with flying colors- on video!) These facts exist on the record linked to www.hillcap.org. READ THE PUBLIC RECORD AND MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGMENTS - DONT BE SHEEP!!
April 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely. I've been highly critical of HRC but let's face it, Paul has no credibility whatsoever and so this lawsuit story should be judged accordingly. Not surprising that this cut-n-paste-n-hit-n-run special comes from POTUS Obama 2008, hardly a paragon of thoughtful posting.
Come on, TPMers. Let's raise the recommendation bar a smidge.
April 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hang my head in shame Genghis. Thanks for the Wapo article. What is really twisted though is this part
It was easy, they said. All it took was money.
Tonken was invited to attend a small dinner with President Bill Clinton and the first lady in February 2000 in Los Angeles, he wrote in his memoir. The price of admission: a donation of $30,000 to $55,000 if he wanted to sit next to the president, Tonken said.
Tonken had Paul write a check for $30,000. Tonken brought Olivia Newton-John along to sing at the dinner. From that moment on, "I was treated like gold . . . or maybe fresh meat," Tonken recalled.
In an interview, Paul also recalled that dinner as a turning point. He brought a video camera, hoping to memorialize a private chat with the president. Before Paul had his footage, Clinton tried to leave, escorted by Secret Service agents. But Tonken boldly blocked their exit, and cajoled the president to go back and talk to Paul, Paul recalled. Clinton did. "I was impressed," Paul said. "Aaron Tonken had done it again, but at the highest possible level. Here you have the commander in chief turning on his heels because Aaron says he has to talk to me on tape."
Everything around the Clinton's is for sale to the highest bidder. While I know that is the way of Washington, isn't that what we want to change?
April 29, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the factcheck link. It may well be total rubbish, but like I said, the footage and photos of her w/ Paul are at a minimum gross and more than plenty. Perhaps it is just that. Gross. And given her guilt-by-association tack against Obama with Wright, Rezko, and Ayers, she certainly was at a minimum "taken in" by an unsavory character.
April 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The case could be a crock, but the Dem nominee is being sued by a former fundraiser and the court is making interesting decisions and comments.
Could we have just one major newspaper article, and a few TV blurbs. Thats all I ask, fair but balanced, at least acknowledge the case exists, let people decide what they think about it.
Some media coverage will also help objectify any prejudicial decisions (real or not, powers that be will most likely try to influence this trial to be over fast as undamaging to her as possible) to let the former felon have his day in court.
April 28, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005...
And acquitted.
April 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didnt he, or someone, pay a fine, which also was a surprisingly soft slap on the wrists? Again, I dotn want this to be Bosnia, I would like to make the point the blackout is deliberate, and HRC should feel blessed Obama isnt calling attention- not because its true- but because it doesnt have to be.
Maybe she is listening: HRC criticizes McCain's critique of Wright. Should we applaud or chastise the insane irony? My heads spinning so much I feel like a possessed Linda Blair.
April 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvsrT8tz6U&feature=related
But it is not too far fetched that Hillary surrounds herself with sleaze.
April 29, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The video presents absolutely no evidence of anyone breaking any law. The videotaped conference call doesn't show--in any way--that Clinton is even talking about Paul's fundraiser. And if she were, there's no sign that she knows of any improprieties. She apparently did a poor job of supervising her campaign--but that's not exactly news.
Clinton skated close to the line on this one. She skates extremely close to the line in general. She's a classic old-style chummy good-ol'-boy politician, and plays all the games. Is she sleazy? Well, are all old-style politicians sleazy? I think so. But no one's interested in investigating because noone wants to be Ken Starr. Stupid sheep-like journalists...grumble, grumble, grumble.
April 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Genghis has repeatedly pointed out when some fool trots this bogus bullshit story up again (how many times now have we read this nontroversy?)... there is nothing to this story and deserves no traction in the reality based community.
April 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know it's bogus? Thats not fair. She has a court date to determine that. All the media has to do is report it and move on, right...or shall I say wright?
April 28, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's no claim, or factual dispute that there may be one here, it should be dismissed. And that may still happen.
April 28, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want Obama to win, but I'm not willing to push this story to do so. There are already enough facts to sink her ship. Let's stay on higher ground.
April 28, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whitesauce, I agree with your sentiments, but this is a story that is already out there. I think that voters have a right to know about this story. This reminds me of some of the crap we have been going through for the last 8+ years. I think we are all tired of it all and would like to start fresh with someone who will not take the oath of office under a cloud of allegations of fraud and corruption. The country can not bare another Clinton saga.
April 28, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very aware of this case, and am dismayed at our judicial branch again being swayed by politics. So disheartening.
April 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed several times that there is a tendency for the Scientology advertising to be located near pro-Obama anti-Clinton posts.
April 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont want to push the story. However with all that Obama has gone through, would it not be fair for them to report the story?.....The double standards for him are appauling, and the Maistream media knows this would be over if they gave it the attention other stories have gotten. Report the stories the same way msm!
April 28, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is big news-- This is an under-reported BOMB SHELL THAT WOULD MAKE THE WRIGHT STORY LOOK LIKE FUN AND GAMES. WHERE IS THE MEDIA ON THIS STORY? IS THIS THE PERSON WE WANT FOR PRESIDENT? IT IS UNBELIEBVABLE THAT OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN WON'T LET THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT THIS STORY--UNBELIEVABLE!! THIS COULD BE THE DESIDING FACTOR FOR A LOT OF UNDESIDERS. WAKE UP ON THIS!!
April 28, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep digging, the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. This has been in the courts for 6+ years and never touched by the media. Watch Orwell Rolls in His Grave on google video, the media is a fricken joke and has been for 20+ years. Did you know Bush's grandfather loaned millions to the nazi's during ww2? He even went to jail for it but no news on that either.
April 29, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forget that the GOP raised a big stink about this story. The Media already gave Clinton a pass on this when the story broke years ago. They certainly will not admit they were wrong then. Now the GOP can just sit back and let all these issues come back to haunt Her, this time it will be with out the tag line of "it's a right-wing attack campaign". Maybe now the truth will come out about the Clinton Machine.
April 30, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can bet your first child that Clinton's campaign would be all over this story if it were Obam's saga instead. I can assure you that if voters knew this they would take a third or fourth look at Hillery--just who is this woman? We already know that she seldom if every say anything negative about her friend McCain, only to remind us that they are the best of friends and that he is more prepared to be president than Obama. Who are we really dealing with here, the republican party or a loyal democrate, it is hard to tell at this point.
April 28, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have let it with my last comment personaly, but I have to add, just imagine if Obama had to testify in the Rezko trial. Come on elite non Obamamites or Clintonites whatever you call us!
April 28, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One, I'm not sure that Factcheck.org stacks up in credibility to the processes of the Court. So, just posting an ARTICLE that claims the case to be closed, does not actually put the story to rest.
The bottom line here is that this story will kill Hillary in November. Enough people already think she's a crook; the narrative will fit. And she's not testifying until after the voters have made her President? Republicans will be dancing in joy.
Best case scenario would be that Hillary is totally clean (she had better be) and she can make arrangements to testify well before the Election. It shouldn't be hard to convince the Judge that such would be appropriate considering the situation. Then she's got to Testify and end this thing.
April 29, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can I print this out ?
All I Get is a Blank Page in IE 7 or FireFox 2.0.14
April 29, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a big problem for Hillary. Postponing her testimony only serves to fuel speculation about her guilt.
I agree with others who recommend that she testify now and put her cards on the table. Just like the stock market, the one thing that voters cannot bear is uncertainty.
The Peter Paul site, while inflammatory, does have good links to information and documents concerning this case. They are in PDF format and can be downloaded for printing.
http://www.peterfpaul.com/
April 30, 2008 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter Paul a criminal? Inventor of the Almond Joy? I think not!
April 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody find it appalling that the Clintons would even associate themselves with this guy!! To me that speaks more volumes about them!! Why even get involved with this shady person? I believe this needs to be addressed in the MSM
April 30, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF THIS WAS ABOUT OBAMA ..IT WOULD BE ANOTHER 24/7 STORY TOLD BY THE MEDIA ...IT'S TIME FOR THE CLINTONS TO GO AWAY..THEY BOTH ARE ONLY OUT FOR THEMSELVES.. IT'S NOT WHAT'S GOOD FOR AMERICAN..ONLY WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM...TIME FOR CHANGE..........
May 1, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the above comment about not following the Clinton defense that Paul is a 'sleaze' - that's completely irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the 'sleaze' is being truthful. He's a convicted felon, but that information was disclosed (had to be because of federal regulations from what I understand).
THAT didn't deter the Clintons in any way. It didn't cause them to withdraw from any event to do with Paul (whose 'Cuban Coffee Caper' was chronicled in Time Magazine in the late 70s) It's not like he was a nameless, faceless felon, either. He'd run in both political and entertainment circles.
Several Clinton aides have fallen on their swords over the Paul matter. How could the 'creative bookkeeping' have only have made it as far as a couple of aides? Does anyone really believe the Clintons didn't know what was going on? If so, I'm not sure that it speaks well to her managment style.
Should Obama bring up this issue? Absolutely NOT. The press should and it's fair game for someone who questions a rival's judgment because of his PASTOR'S political views -views he doesn't share, to have legitimate questions about HER judgment asked. It's fair to ask what she knew and when she knew it... especially in light of that phone call. Obama is reamed by the press for someone else's views, Clinton can't be questioned about her own actions?
Magnequench, anyone? When the Clintons tell us what's 'true', there's a reason to double and triple check their 'facts'.
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2008/05/03/news/top_news/docff55bfdb8b298a198625743e0001b719.txt
May 4, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, the Clinton's appear to have a long list of associations with unsavory characters. All associated with fundraising activities.
Second, I am emailing this story to every media contact I can get my hands on with the message:
"I'd like to see the MSM cover this story with as much tenacity and resources as you have covered the Rev. Wright issue. Somehow this news worthy story did not register on your radar.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/breaking-news-hillary-clinton.php
Disappointed in California"
May 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know why the media is not focused on the open letter, written by longtime Clinton friend, filmmaker Michael Moore. The letter, dated April 21, 2008, tells how the Clinton's invited Rev Wright to the Oval Office for "spiritual guidance" when Bill cheated with Monica Lewinsky. It gets better! Barack Obama KNOWS this information, but is too decent a man to throw it back in Hellery's face. Go to
www.michaelmoore.com
and read for yourself. I have e-mailed a number of media outlets, but nothing so far. I wonder why? If this was some dirt on Barack, it would already have been plastered all over the news.
EX-CLINTON SUPPORTER
May 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment