Clinton trial date to be set April 25, 2008 in the Paul vs. Clinton campaign contribution fiasco..

[1776Forever]

The strange case of Hillary Clinton vs. Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee and his business partner Peter Paul

updated February 15, 2008

http://www.getuptospeedfast.com/peter_paul_hillary_clinton/index.php

The information in this section (half way down the page) outlines Douglas Cogan's point-by-point rebuttal to the factcheck.org debunking article about this issue, with key segments highlighted ..

(snip)

Re: the Brian Ross 20/20 clip.

We respectfully disagree that the use of the clip is unfair at all. It was indicative of Hillary’s refusal to ever discuss the name Peter Paul as a donor. Despite FBI evidence presented in court that Paul personally donated $1.2 million, she has never acknowledged his name in any media quotes or FEC filings as the largest donor to her campaign or as a donor of anything to her campaign. When she finally mentioned his name in her sworn declaration, her first comment about Paul was demonstrably false. There exists video evidence to prove that they met in 1993, not 2000 as she swears. That is exposed in the full documentary, and the meeting was one she would never forget. No one would. Paul had his client, Fabio, chase Hillary around the room and pick her up in his famous romance pose. On video from early 2000, Paul’s camera captured his conversation with Hillary in which they were laughing about the event and in which Hillary promises to send him the photos of Fabio holding her. Despite that promise, the photos have never been forthcoming.

(snip)

The rest of the story involves the role of the then candidate and her agent, the President of the United States, in soliciting, coordinating, and then hiding Paul's expenditures. That activity was not legal. Pursuant to court testimony, it was Levin and Craighead who came up with the idea for a dramatic event to take place for Hillary just before the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. They conceived the idea after a Chicago fundraiser for Hillary. The next day, Levin called Paul to solicit him to pay for the event if the President would agree to work with him. The solicitation and coordination of the million dollar event by Levin as an agent for the candidate, through Bill Clinton, was a felony. It is critical to understand the role of some of the players. Levin, Craighead, Tonken, and Bill Clinton were not a part of any joint fundraising committee that could coordinate soft money donations. They were, in fact, all agents of Hillary Clinton. Craighead was a White House employee. As agents, their direct solicitation of a donation of over a million dollars was all hard money and illegal.
..........

You can read the rest if you want that gives the FactCheck.org deduction and then a rebuttal by Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the Peter Paul vs. Clinton film. I am not saying any of this is correct or not but it is going to come out in the following months and I think if the MSM can go after Obama for Rev. Wright and Rezko than they should dig into this too!

:headbang:

[rinsd]

1. IOW, you know its bullshit but you post it anyway.

:shrug:

[guyanakoolaid]

2. Hillary needs to be "vetted" before the GE. Are you denying the Peter Paul story?

[rinsd]

3. Yes, I am. The Peter Paul story is bullshit.

Crooked Claims About Clinton
January 18, 2008
Updated: February 8, 2008
Four-time convicted felon falsely accuses Clinton in video viewed by millions.
Summary
In a video that has logged millions of views on the Internet since early October, Peter Paul, a felon who helped produce a gala fundraiser for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, makes a number of false or misleading charges against the presidential contender and former First Lady. Among them:

• The video gives the false impression that the Clintons somehow caused Paul to be investigated for securities fraud as retaliation for a lawsuit he filed against them. But the investigation – and Paul’s indictment – came first.

• A lawyer appearing on the video claims that a telephone conversation between Paul, Hillary Clinton and others shows that she had knowledge of and perpetrated illegal campaign activities, when the conversation illustrates no such thing. It only shows Hillary thanking organizers of a fundraiser.

• The same lawyer alleges that the actions of Clinton and those working for her amounted to "the largest fraud in election funding history," a claim that is absurd. The campaign was fined for a reporting violation, not "fraud." And the fine was relatively modest compared with other FEC fines.

• The video makes deceptive use of an ABC "20/20" clip in an effort to prove that the Clintons pretended not to know who Paul was after his criminal past came to light.

Update Feb. 8: We have received a response from Douglas Cogan, co-producer of the video. We’ve reviewed Cogan’s comments carefully and see no reason to change anything we said. We have posted his unedited comments and our response as a supporting document.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html

[guyanakoolaid]

9. Ahhh... it wasn't "fraud", it was a "reporting violation", thanks for clearing that up

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

15. But but.. What about Mary?? Peter Paul & no Mary.. not fair

Okay..how about a Mounds or Almond Joy instead :)

In other words, the media will give a collective yawn..and then yammer..


whycantheclosethedeal?
whydon'tdropuoutgunslingingwhitecatholicsvoteforhim
reverendwrightreverendwrightreverendwrightreverendwright

[yourguide]

7. HAHAHAHAHAHA...

this is certainly fair game if you guys think rezko is...

[MidwestTransplant]

12. You mean Rezko the Republican donor with ties to Karl Rove?

Apparently he tried to get Fitz fired with Rove's help by way of a Republican bigwig in IL.

[yourguide]

16. Yup apparently he did...which is bullshit, fitz is awesome...

but lest ye forget some very big name Clinton donors and fundraisers are tied to rezko as well. for whatever reason the hillbots on this board seem to think rezko is fair game with regards to obama, I dont...no evidence what so ever he was involved in rezkos dirty business, and the big chicago paper stated as much...

[rinsd]

14. What are you five years old? The they did it too excuse?

Be responsible for your own actions.

[yourguide]

18. And be responsible for yours.

If you guys think Rezko is a real issue, which it's not, then this is just as much of an non-issue and deserves just as much promotion on this board.

[rinsd]

21. You would have a point if I posted on Rezko.

But I haven't.

[yourguide]

25. do a search on rezko in the subject line, past 2 months...

not you, many of the supporters.

[rinsd]

26. What part of "be responsible for your own actions" do you not understand?

:shrug:

[yourguide]

29. what part of...

fair game do you not understand...HRCs campaign opened the flood gates on "toughening up", might be time for your candidate to be toughened up a little too.

sorry, I dont condone it but I am sick of having such unfair garbage posted about obama, I think after she linked him with friggin Hamas on a televised debate that all of her dirty laundry is fair game.

[rinsd]

32. Back to they started it?

Grow up.

[yourguide]

34. you grow up...

so it's ok to throw a bunch of BS at obama on these boards but not to throw anything back?

sometimes you need to stand up to bullies and fight them the same way they fight you.

[1776Forever]

8. Is it or not - the FBI investigated it - I think MSM should start to report about it!

What is good for the gander is good for the goose!!!!!

[cbayer]

42. And they cleared her.

Yes I think the MSM should report that she underwent a DOJ investigation and was cleared.

[1776Forever]

50. No she was not! This has not been vetted yet! Why would Paul continue this & a trial date be set??

:hide:

[Diane R]

4. Amazing that it's the Sound of Silence from the MSM.

[City Lights]

10. How 'bout it! The stinkin' debate was on abc and they ignored the 20/20

story in favor of questions from Fox Noise's Sean Hannity!

[anonymous171]

5. OMG SHE IS TOAST!

[The Magistrate]

6. To save People Some Trouble Finding Out the Facts, Sir

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html

Here is an especially entertaining excerpt....

Return of the Clinton-Bashers

Many of the individuals and groups helping Paul have long histories of Clinton-bashing or attacks on other Democrats. David Schippers, for example, who appears on the tape, is the former chief investigative counsel for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 Clinton impeachment hearings.
Another character from that era who is involved in this story is Lucianne Goldberg. Goldberg rose to prominence as the person behind Linda Tripp's plan to tape her conversations with friend Monica Lewinsky in connection with Lewinsky's relationship with Bill Clinton. Paul told us that he became friendly with Goldberg via e-mail when he was in a Brazilian prison (don't even ask) and that it was Goldberg who "leaked" the unfinished video, which was intended to be cut down to be a preview, to the media in October last year.

Paul is now represented by another conservative legal group, the United States Justice Foundation, after having a falling-out with, and suing, Judicial Watch. Paul contended that Judicial Watch used his case as a fundraising tool for itself while doing little to help him legally, which the group denies. USJF is behind the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (HillCAP), a Web site that features court documents, news articles and other material related to Paul's complaints against the Clintons. According to the Associated Press, the HillCAP Web site is operated by two conservatives who were instrumental in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site in 2004, Robert Hahn and Scott Swett.

Earlier this month, Paul asked the FEC to reopen its investigation into the 2000 fundraiser, claiming the videotaped phone conversation we mentioned earlier is further proof of crimes related to the event, and that New York Senate 2000 has not properly complied with the conciliation agreement. The agency has not yet acted.

Meanwhile, Paul is still awaiting sentencing on his securities fraud conviction.

Paul's movie isn't the only one that is lobbing accusations at Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, another group that long has been involved in efforts against the Clintons, is selling "Hillary: the Movie" online and was in federal court recently over its attempt to run ads for the film in primary states during election season. The ads contain clips from the movie, including one of former Clinton adviser Dick Morris saying that Hillary Clinton "is the closest thing we have to a European socialist." A three-judge panel ruled this week that the ads amounted to electioneering and could be run only with a disclaimer and only if Citizens United disclosed its donors to the FEC.

Given the passions, pro and con, that Hillary and Bill Clinton seem to ignite, it's a good bet we can expect more such films before the election is over.

– by Viveca Novak

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Hillary's not a part of the suit

[1776Forever]

13. You better check this court document - it says she is - Do you have a link to say she is not???

http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PETER F. PAUL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S.
SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., NEW
YORK SENATE 2000, DAVID ROSEN,
GARY SMITH, JAMES LEVIN, and
AARON TONKEN,
Defendants.
_______________________________
)))))))))))))))))
Case No. BC 304174
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION, AMONG
OTHER RELIEF, ARISING FROM:
(1) FRAUD AND DECEIT;
(2) NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION;
(3) UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES;
(4) UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
and
(5) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; and
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Assigned to: Hon. Aurelio N.
Munoz
Department 47

[rinsd]

17. Perhaps because you are relying on full of shit sources even knowing they are full of shit.

A California state appeals court has upheld a previous ruling made in Los Angeles Superior Court which dismisses Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a civil lawsuit over the financing of a 2000 Hollywood fundraiser for her first senate campaign that was to honor the tenure of former President Bill Clinton. But the appeal judges also ruled that the plaintiff in the case may still be allowed to depose the former First Lady once discovery in the matter commences.

The plaintiff in the case, North Carolina businessman Peter Franklin Paul, had filed a civil suit in 2004 against Bill and Hillary Clinton and her 2000 New York U.S. Senate election committee to recover over one million dollars in expenses he claimed he incurred when putting together the event in Los Angeles which was billed as a 'Farewell Salute to President Clinton.'

He alleged in the original complaint that the former president later reneged on an oral agreement to become a spokesperson for Paul's internet animation company called 'Stan Lee Media,' so he filed the suit to recover the money that paid for the event which were taken from the company's funds.

The three judges for the Seventh Division of the Second Appellate District for California issued their brief October 16. It stated 'the orders granting Senator Clinton and Clinton for Senate's motion to strike and denying Paul's motion for leave to depose Senator Clinton are affirmed. Senator Clinton and Clinton for Senate are to recover their costs on appeal.'

Those motions which the judges upheld dismisses Mrs. Clinton from the lawsuit.

The judges also noted in their brief their refusal to review the video contents and transcript of a purported July 17, 2000 telephone call made between Paul, Stan Lee, Mrs. Clinton and several of her staffers in which certain financial details of the fundraiser were apparently discussed and acknowledged by the then senatorial candidate since the material was provided to the judges by the plaintiffs' attorney months after Paul had originally filed his appeal and reasons why it should be reversed to the original 2006 Superior Court ruling by LASC Judge Aurelio Munoz.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/417956/hillary_clinton_dismissed_as_a_defendant.html

[1776Forever]

19. So the FBI and the California Court are shit sources??? Sounds like a good Hillary supporter to me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rinsd]

23. You linked to the CA Court system and the FBI?

All I see is a pdf on that loon's website.

[1776Forever]

28. The .pdf is a link to the doucment file Case No. BC 304174 - this can be check out & FBI

documents can be looked at here from 2004 Washington Post article:

U.S. Probes Clinton Senate Campaign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9605-2004Oct5.html

Associated Press
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A11

The Justice Department is trying to secure the cooperation of an indicted businessman as it pursues Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for possible fundraising violations, according to interviews and documents.

The FBI told a U.S. magistrate in Los Angeles two years ago that it has evidence Clinton's campaign deliberately understated its fundraising costs so it would have more money to spend on elections. Prosecutors contend that businessman Peter Paul made donations because he wanted a pardon from President Bill Clinton.

...........

:nopity:

[rinsd]

31. LOL the Bush admin Justice Dept! No bias there.

Are you going to acknowledge that she was dismissed as a defendant in the civil suit or not?

You do realize things have happened since 2004 don't you?

[1776Forever]

35. Judge Aurelio N. Munoz is expected to set the trial date at an April 25 hearing.

March 20, 2008:

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. California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz ruled Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Munoz is expected to set the trial date at an April 25 hearing.

[rinsd]

38. self delete double post

[rinsd]

39. What no link to the RW Hillary Project or World Nut Daily you got that from?

[cbayer]

46. She was removed as a defendant by the judge.

But keep saying that she's is a defendant. That will really boost your credibility.

It's in the worldnet article you cited. Guess you didn't read down that far.

[1776Forever]

52. I don't know you and you don't know me! I feel that like I said this needs to be out in the open!!!

I am tired of the MSM only going after Barack Obama while Hillary is just gliding along talking about her baggage like everyone is OK with it! I am NOT OK with it and I want to know more! The Clinton's have been in a lot of questionable situations and this is just one more to add to the long list! Don't question my credibility! I have only given facts here and said that it needs to be looked at in the open! What the H is wrong with that??????????

[cbayer]

55. I've got no beef with your goal of equal MSM treatment.

None at all. This is just the wrong story with which to make your point. I apologize for being harsh. If you want to know more then I am gently suggesting to you that you find out more before you post information you have obtained from sites that have their sole focus to destroy one of our democratic candidates. You have not given facts. In fact, you have given information that is not factual. If you can find a legitimate source to support you, then post that.

Believe me, I do not take this position to protect Clinton. There is nothing to protect her from. It just makes DU look really, really bad and makes you look bad as the messenger.

[Vinca]

20. Fabio chasing Hillary around? Was she wearing a pant suit?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

22. Is this the one where they have a film of two people listening to a voice mail

and it's allegedly her voice on the recording, and she's talking about illegal stuff?

[1776Forever]

24. There are a bunch of YouTube video's on this - here are links to a couple of them........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

[cbayer]

27. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Anyone who pulls this case out shows to everyone here that they have no credibility at all.

You should do yourself a favor and indulge in a little more research about this issue. If you do not and persist in pushing it, you will be deserve the derision and loss of credibility that comes your way.

[1776Forever]

30. The Justice Dept. looked at this as well as the FBI - HRC should be looked at not me!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9605-2004Oct5.html

U.S. Probes Clinton Senate Campaign

Associated Press
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A11

The Justice Department is trying to secure the cooperation of an indicted businessman as it pursues Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for possible fundraising violations, according to interviews and documents.

The FBI told a U.S. magistrate in Los Angeles two years ago that it has evidence Clinton's campaign deliberately understated its fundraising costs so it would have more money to spend on elections. Prosecutors contend that businessman Peter Paul made donations because he wanted a pardon from President Bill Clinton.

[cbayer]

40. Did you read that part in your 2004 article about Paul being a 3 time convicted felon?

Clinton was cleared by the Justice Department, the FEC, and the Senate Ethics Committee.

He made fraud charges against her and the case was thrown out of court.

He tried to bring civil charges and lost. He had to pay all of her legal fees for this fiasco.

He has refiled his case. It is a total publicity stunt by a con artist who has been trying to destroy the Clintons for years and has been utterly unsuccessful at doing so because HE HAS NOTHING.

You really look foolish and I am not going to try and help you out of this at this point.

[1776Forever]

47. Don't be too quick to judge him - Read the Accuracy in Media report done in 2005 about this.......

AIM Report: The Scandal that Could Sink Hillary - November B

AIM Report | November 22, 2005

By Paul M. Rodriguez

Consider the contrasting coverage of DeLay with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Virtually every detail of alleged DeLay transgressions gets reported and in very great detail. But scant coverage has been given to equally serious allegations against the junior senator from New York

(snip)

The Jury Is Out

One beneficial unintended consequence of such zeal on the part of the press is that it provides the public with as clear a picture of whether a politician is guilty of wrongdoing, or not. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York may be riding a wave of popularity and stardom few could muster—but should be tapped or cleared once and for all of any scandal.

The failure by the press to pursue the allegations raised by Peter Paul in his civil suit, for which depositions already are underway, is a crime unto itself.

Media Cover-Ups

Ditto for the failure of the press to link up Paul's allegations with the documentation and testimony presented in the Rosen case, where evidence appears undisputed that Hillary Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign machine violated the law and perhaps broke some criminal statutes as well.

Sadly, the public may not ever get the chance to find out unless the press does its job and reports with equal treatment the case(s) against Hillary Clinton as fully as it seems determined to report on the case(s) against Tom DeLay. Given that Hillary Clinton appears headed to a presidential run, the public deserves to know before the heat of a White House battle what's been going on.

That's one reason the public so distrusts the press, bias aside. Too much gets dumped on them during political contests that smacks of political manipulations. Maybe if the press were to do its job evenly throughout each year then the public might feel better about an industry now seen as having an agenda. And, it seems, it's not the public's interest.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Tim Russert and Robert McCormick of NBC News, and Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Paul M. Rodriguez, the former managing editor of Insight Magazine, is a media and public policy consultant in Washington, D.C.

...........

Makes me go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

[VenusRising]

33. It's up to the court to make a decision on that now.

If the court tosses it, then it is as you say. We'll just have to wait on the judgment from the court.

[1776Forever]

36. Thank you - that is the truth! I agree totally - but you don't hear anyting on MSM about it.

:headbang:

[VenusRising]

37. If it's going to trial there has to be probable cause.

Now it's up to the court to make a determination. I'm okay with that.

Thanks for bringing up the trial. I saw a couple of clips on you tube a while back and brought it up and got the same responses that you have. Now that it's on schedule for going to trial, there has to be something to the case to make it on to the docket. If it's dismissed, great! If not, then it's better it all be heard and justice be served.

[rinsd]

41. Hillary has been dismissed as a defendant. Its over.

[1776Forever]

43. Do you have a link for that? The last thing I saw Paul was given permission to call her to testify!

Even if she was she is going to find herself in the spotlight once again! Boy does she have BAGGAGE or not?????????

[rinsd]

45. Its was in post # 17

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/417956/hillary_clinton_dismissed_as_a_defendant.html

[cbayer]

49. You linked to it yourself.

Calling her as a witness is quite different than being named as a defendant.

BTW, did you happen to notice the post upthread by a highly respected moderator of this site? I wasn't sure because you chose not to respond to that one.

[cbayer]

44. And it's up to people on DU to decided whether to swallow this.

Anyone who does will look very, very foolish.

[1776Forever]

48. Before you dismiss this accusation read this reply from Accuracy in Media.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5651622&mesg_id=5653193

[cbayer]

51. That is an indictment of the press for not adequately covering the case.

The case that she later went on to win.

I am done now. Best of luck. I'll never forget your username.

[1776Forever]

53. Nor I yours - I can always put you on ignore but I won't give you that much credibility!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Just like a good Hillary supporter - Tear down and never compromise and allow the truth to come out!!!!!!!!!!

[cbayer]

56. I'm a notbot.

I am not a bot of either camp.

[1776Forever]

58. Yeah right - and I am too. That is hard to believe. Why don't you want this to be vetted then????

:hide:

[Political Heretic]

54. My understanding has been that there is little to nothing to this.

I don't like posting insinuations that aren't accurate just to smear an opponent. :(

[1776Forever]

57. Then you think the Rezko thing was OK to exploit? I said I just want this vetted!

The FBI had some evidence on this. Also I wonder if you saw the Accuracy in the Media Article I mentioned:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-scandal-that-could-sink-hillary-november-b/