Breaking News! : Hillary Clinton Required to Testify in November to FEC Fraud!

[DogPoundPup]

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.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/breaking-news-hillary-clinton.php

[Maddy McCall]

1. She may not testify at all.

Much ado about nothing.

[JackORoses]

4. in Clintonese, Fraud = Much ado...

Hillarious!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. Clintonese! LOL!

[Califooyah Operative]

37. eh. It's just fraud.

no big deal right?

[Skwmom]

51. So true and so sad.

[cliffordu]

6. Colombia. Tuzla. China.

That's my girl....

[Doityourself]

45. lmao..just another day at the Clinton ranch

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

15. Isn't she 'special'? If she has to testify, it could be an ado about something,

Then again, would she tell the truth? :think: 'Maybe' if it benefits her. :eyes:

[tekisui]

46. Jeebus, talk about a re-run of the 90's.

I am relieved she won't be the Nominee. It would be embarrassing as hell to have our President-elect enter their term with a fraud trial. It would go down hill from there.

[cui bono]

69. Yeah, the Republicans would love that. Wonder how the judge leans?

That's two reasons s/he might be a Republican. First to help her to the nomination, second to help cause her downfall with a scandal right off the bat.

[Sadie5]

78. Obama should tell the truth

about Rezko,rev Wright, Ayres/dohrn, his Muslim ties, the black Panthers. Don'y ya think!!

[FatDave]

81. "Obama's a Muslim! Obama's a Muslim!"

Fuck you.

[Fedja]

101. Well done

Some of my immediate family are Muslim and I object to your insinuation that it's a something to be ashamed of. The likes of you are the only reason I'm sometimes apprehensive about the ideal of free speech.

[Fedja]

102. dupe

/

[0007]

93. The Queen will run things as she sees fit.

[nichomachus]

56. Exactly

No big deal. Why the Clintons sometimes do 10 fraudulent things before breakfast. This is much ado about nothing.

[fascisthunter]

74. GOP is Waiting for Ya

Fraud is a big deal to me and I hope the rest of voters in the Democratic Party.

[sellitman]

87. What is she hiding?

If its much to do about nothing then why not address this thing right away and put it behind her? This just makes her look even worse. She is in trouble my dear and no amount of spin will change that.

What is she hiding?

[Ashy Larry]

2. But I thought she was vetted...

:shrug:

[razors edge]

104. And experienced, in corruption. n/t

[0007]

110. She needs her distemper shots.

[SunsetDreams]

3. This will only raise more questions about what she is hiding

This does not look good for her. If she isn't hiding anything from voters, why wait until November?

[mcctatas]

5. WTF?

*********snip*********
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!

*************snip****************

This just reeks of special treatment, but I'm sure loyal hillary supporters will explain why it is no big deal, it's not like she has a contreversial pastor, poor bowling skills, or any other scandals waiting in the wings......

[cliffordu]

7. "I love the smell of Armageddon in the morning....."

[Yael]

10. The Peter Paul case

Yes, that should be fun. Mr. Paul recorded EVERY phone conversation including one hilarious don't-miss clip from PA Governor Fast Eddie Rendell talking about how to go about gaming the system.

Mrs. Clinton (NeoCon-NY) had to pay $35k out of her campaign coffers in FEC fines already.

Da Judge moved the date to after the GE as if that matters...

:popcorn:

[SunsetDreams]

12. It really matters not, it doesn't stop the public

or the media from vetting her anyway, because there are lots of facts out there already, and her not having to answer for them in court and put it to rest, only raises more questions.
She will be slammed hard on this, for putting her political ambitions over answering to this. It's a political stunt to wait until Nov. It wouldn't be as damaging if she had the guts to face it head on, but she doesn't, she cares more about votes which is why she is agreeing to wait until November. You can't tell me this was all the Judges decision, she could say, no I insist, I have nothing to hide. I will answer your questions. It makes her look guilty as hell, and frankly the evidence I've seen and heard, if she doesn't answer for it, she will be guilty per public opinion, and that is HIGHLY damaging. It's her fault for playing with political fire on this.

[merh]

32. you'd think if she has nothing to hide, if there is nothing to this

case as others allude, she would want to give the deposition and be done with it.

The quicker the case ended the better, prolonging it just leaves it out there for speculation and as more baggage for her campaign.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Love your avatar btw, but, this is going to be huge. The Repubs...

...have this on the backburner ready and waiting for Hillary to snatch the nomination.

All hell will break loose as they call in the aid of their powerful propaganda machine and sow the seeds of doubt and old court battles and suits of the Clinton era.

Then McSame will cruise smoothly into the WH.

Easy pickin's.

[mcctatas]

14. There's audio?

has anyone ever heard it? And why didn't I (who has become rabidly anti-clinton in part due to a small cadre of nasty hillbots running amok on DU) know she had paid FEC fines? Has the MSM ever even talked about it? Fuck, I hate not knowing shit!
:toast:

[guyanakoolaid]

29. of the Peter Paul calls? I heard one...

They had them on a nightly news show, I'm pretty sure it was 20/20 or 60 Minutes.

[catgirl]

49. I think I saw that one too

They showed Gerald Ford accepting an award (a stolen vase from the hotel). It
was LOL hilarious. I'd LOVE to see it again!

[MagickMuffin]

39. Ask and you shall receive: Youtube videos here

Part 1

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

Part 2

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

This link is a video of Hillary on phone with Peter Paul, Stan Lee, and unidentifed woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOOwvDtSo3M&feature=related


Happy Viewing:toast:

[Yael]

54. In addition to the videos above me

Here is a quick google search return talking about the $35,000 fine that was levied -- with links back to source.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/29/205537/484/462/506022

[karynnj]

55. I think most politicians end up paying some FEC fines

If the FEC disagrees with how any expenditure was handled there can be fines. Even Kerry, whose people were extremely careful had some that were settled after the election. It was things like spending primary money to put Kerry/Edwards marking on his and Edwards plane, which was done before the convention. This put Kerry slightly over the general election limit - but nothing like Bush was.

I don't know the details of HRC's but it would be good to know what the details were.

[redqueen]

59. There are some on YouTube. (nt)

[pompano]

19. LOL!

Mrs. Clinton (NeoCon-NY) :rofl:

You folks here at DU say some of the funniest things. I have been laughing for 10 minutes.

[mcctatas]

34. Do you usually hang out places where they aren't quite so

funny? hmmmmm? do tell? what about their grammar? ;)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. I haven't seen this in the New Yourk Times or the Washingotn Post

must have missed it?

[rodeodance]

38. only so-called Obama bloggers are yapping about it......see this:

Crooked Claims About Clinton

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


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.


Analysis

Last fall, a video attacking Hillary Clinton began attracting attention on the Internet. A lot of attention, in fact – it garnered more than 1.4 million views in its first month, and is up to more than 3.4 million at this writing.

Clocking in at about 13 minutes, the piece is a preview of a longer movie that makes various charges against the Clintons stemming from a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000, when Hillary Clinton was running for the Senate. That DVD is for sale. We analyzed only the preview, because it is readily available on the Internet and has drawn such a large audience; we viewed the longer film to make sure we weren't misunderstanding Paul's charges.

The video reminds us of various "documentaries" that proliferated in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. "The Mena Coverup," "The Clinton Chronicles" and others accused Clinton of a range of illegal and unethical acts. Like many – we daresay most – of those, this video contains a lot of false, unproven and misleading material. And what it leaves out is often more important than what it tells us.
.........

[ruby slippers]

16. maybe if she wins the nom and then this breaks, Obama will

run as a third party candidate. Wouldn't that be the cat's meow?

[cliffordu]

24. No -it would be the bees knees.

[ruby slippers]

25. no, you need to watch my video--it is cats--.....here is the link

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bkjkH1ZEgpM

[Zhade]

26. She won't win, and she's more likely to run as a third-party candidate.

The "I'M OWED THE PRESIDENCY DESPITE MY CONSTANT DOCUMENTED LIES, YOU FUCKING SUCKERS!" party.

[redqueen]

60. "YOU FUCKING SUCKERS!"

Now there is a title we'd certainly have earned, if her "inevitable" candidacy had gone the way she expected.

[DogPoundPup]

68. Insiders Say Obama Has Won Elected Superdelegates

"Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over," according to The Politico, and Sen. Barack Obama appears to have won the majority.

A Wall Street Journal story yesterday came to the same conclusion.

"While more than 80 Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to state their preferences in the race for the Democratic nomination, sources said Tuesday that most of them have already made up their minds and have told the campaigns where they stand."

Said Sen. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a supporter of Obama: "The majority of superdelegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/30/insiders_say_obama_has_won_elected_superdelegates.html

[LVjinx]

17. This was attempted, and failed, bribery from Peter Paul. Let's not repost Freeper talking points.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. It's the Peter Paul case

Check around on the net and in legal circles -- Paul is a crackpot. If you think this will be the final stroke that fells the Wicked Witch, you're mistaken. It's a wingnut ripoff artist trying to keep his ass out of prison by claiming he's joined at the hip with the Clintons. The guy makes Larry Klayman look like Louis Brandeis.

This is not a boon for Hillary haters; at best it will backfire. Do a little research before holding a gloat party.

--p!

[ruby slippers]

21. here is a youtube video on P. Paul and Hillary....

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

[rodeodance]

40. Crooked Claims About Clinton===Fact Ck. check here.

Crooked Claims About Clinton

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


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.


Analysis

Last fall, a video attacking Hillary Clinton began attracting attention on the Internet. A lot of attention, in fact – it garnered more than 1.4 million views in its first month, and is up to more than 3.4 million at this writing.

Clocking in at about 13 minutes, the piece is a preview of a longer movie that makes various charges against the Clintons stemming from a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000, when Hillary Clinton was running for the Senate. That DVD is for sale. We analyzed only the preview, because it is readily available on the Internet and has drawn such a large audience; we viewed the longer film to make sure we weren't misunderstanding Paul's charges.

The video reminds us of various "documentaries" that proliferated in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. "The Mena Coverup," "The Clinton Chronicles" and others accused Clinton of a range of illegal and unethical acts. Like many – we daresay most – of those, this video contains a lot of false, unproven and misleading material. And what it leaves out is often more important than what it tells us.

[flpoljunkie]

48. Clintons have hired David Kendall to defend them: Peter F. Paul vs. William J. Clinton

Stop reading nonssensical gossip about the Clintons. If you really need information about their corrupted activities check out this official site.

Hillary and Bill are waiting for their trial date to be set for fraud and possible purgery! Media doesn't talk about it because these criminals still have many powerful contacts.

Check out the website WWW.LASUPERIORCOURT.ORG.
In the Civil Column, click on CASE SUMMARIES
Then enter this case number: BC304174

PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTO

Posted by: Robson | April 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/new-clintonobam.html

[rinsd]

65. Hillary was dismissed as a defendant two years ago and that was upheld on appeal last Oct.

An appellate court on Tuesday denied a motion to reinstate Sen. Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a lawsuit that claims she, former President Clinton and others induced a former supporter to finance a 2000 fundraising gala.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to remove the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate from a lawsuit filed by Peter Paul. The three-judge panel also said Clinton can recoup legal costs.

"Today the California appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Peter Paul's complaint against Sen. Clinton," said the former first lady's attorney David Kendall. "The court relied upon earlier findings by the Federal Election Commission which found no evidence of misconduct by Sen. Clinton in regard to the 2000 fundraiser."

The appellate panel called Paul's argument "fatally flawed," and noted a FEC audit found that neither Clinton nor her Senate campaign accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser.

"In fact, the record as presented to us strongly suggests Sen. Clinton's and Clinton for Senate's conduct was perfectly legal," the appellate court wrote in its decision.

[DogPoundPup]

96. Nevertheless...(she has a memory like Gonzo.)..

"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."

[ruby slippers]

here is a Youtube on P. Paul and Hillary--sorry double post

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

[rinsd]

66. Yeah Larry Sinclair is on YouTube too. Doesn't give his bullshit the smell of roses either.

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

[JackORoses]

28. if he's a wingnut, why was he raising money for the Clintons?

[liberaldem4ever]

20. Why doesn't the MSM talk about this?

I'm shocked that more hasn't been discussed about the Peter Paul case. I found a couple of videos on You Tube where Paul is discussing the circumstances and evidence against both of the Clintons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

This is very informative stuff if anybody is interested. I was really surprised when I saw it.

[berni_mccoy]

23. They are saving it if she wins the nominee. They would destroy her with this

But they don't want to do that if they can keep a close, heated and destructive battle going on for the Dems.

If she finds some way to steal the nomination, then they would unleash this story, but only after the convention and with just the right timing.

[rodeodance]

41. Crooked Claims About Clinton...Legit news services are not the same as Obama bloggers.

Crooked Claims About Clinton

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


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.


Analysis

Last fall, a video attacking Hillary Clinton began attracting attention on the Internet. A lot of attention, in fact – it garnered more than 1.4 million views in its first month, and is up to more than 3.4 million at this writing.

Clocking in at about 13 minutes, the piece is a preview of a longer movie that makes various charges against the Clintons stemming from a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000, when Hillary Clinton was running for the Senate. That DVD is for sale. We analyzed only the preview, because it is readily available on the Internet and has drawn such a large audience; we viewed the longer film to make sure we weren't misunderstanding Paul's charges.

The video reminds us of various "documentaries" that proliferated in the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. "The Mena Coverup," "The Clinton Chronicles" and others accused Clinton of a range of illegal and unethical acts. Like many – we daresay most – of those, this video contains a lot of false, unproven and misleading material. And what it leaves out is often more important than what it tells us.

[rinsd]

63. Because its bullshit. And remains so no matter how many "concerned" Obama posters put it up.

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

This is a big hit on free republic.

Maybe tomorrow you can post "surprising" rumors about Hillary's lesbian affair.

[DogPoundPup]

94. Yea?and McAuliffe says Faux is "Fair and Balanced"

So what is your point again?

[juajen]

99. This photo of Hillary shows her in glasses, with blue eyes.

Why did I read on here that she wore blue tinted contact lenses? Does anyone have proof of this allegation? Not that it would make any difference to me, but I would like to know if that statement was accurate. Anyone?

[pompano]

22. If this...

doesn't turn Bill's face plum colored and bring on the finger shaking to judge all finger shakings by..........nuttin' will. :rofl:

"They palyed the depo-card on her, thats right, the depo-card"

:sarcasm:

[liberaldem4ever]

27. K&R!!

[Diane R]

30. Why not testify until November? Her calendar will be clear in a few days.....

[redqueen]

62. The judge graciously postponed it... without even having been asked to do so.

I'm sure it wasn't a favor or anything, though.

:rofl:

[Vattel]

82. innuendo n/t

[redqueen]

109. Of course, but what matters is public perception. (nt)

[AzDar]

31. Kick...

:kick:

[Major Hogwash]

33. Her campaign ponzi scheme is just about broke too.

She didn't raise $10 million dollars in 24 hours. Just moved money from 1 account to another in order to defraud her supporters.

[juajen]

100. Do you have a link?

[Moochy]

35. How Conveeeeenient

[DFW]

36. There is a good reason this was not in the NYT or WP

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

[jasmine621]

42. Thanks for posting this. I doubt many BO supporters will even read it.

And those who do, will probably not admit to what it reports.

[DFW]

43. I'm pretty much neutral in the Clinton-Obama race

But my father was a well-respected journalist in Washington, and if there's
one thing I learned long ago, it's that a sensational story that is false will
show up on page one and be on everyone's mind, whereas when it gets debunked
as crap, it shows up in a tiny one-column story on page 32, and nobody cares.

It seems like there is a LOT of wishful thinking out there, people ready to believe
that their own preferred candidate is a saint in white robes, where the one they
don't prefer is the devil incarnate--any story that praises their favorite is true,
any story that flames the "other one" is true, no matter what the source, no matter
how little veracity is involved.

Ignorance is not a new phenomenon. My father didn't know whether to laugh or cry
back in the 60s about this one: in North Carolina, a radio announcer, as a joke,
gave out an "alert" that an amoeba had been sighted in some part of town, and that
people should take appropriate precautions. A few minutes later, he said that another
amoeba had been sighted in another part of town, and it was likely that others were
in the area. The police telephone lines were jammed by frantic parents looking for
ways to get to their kids, and make sure they got protection. The radio guy got
suspended. His joke should have gotten laughs, probably did from 20% of his listeners.
Instead, people who had no idea what an amoeba was, and couldn't be bothered to look
it up, concocted up their own images of Jurassic Park on Main Street and went berserk.

I get the impression sometimes that certain partisan supporters (of whichever of the
two candidates) are very frightened by amoeba sightings.

[jasmine621]

70. Your father was obviously a smart, decent man. nt

[cbayer]

76. That is really good and I encourage you to post it as an OP. nt.

[DogPoundPup]

44. What??????????? the video ?

Speak to THIS article's content...OR, you chose more deception?

[flpoljunkie]

53. "Paul was a thrice-convicted felon at the time, a fact that wasn't known to the Clintons..."

Paul was a thrice-convicted felon at the time, a fact that wasn't known to the Clintons or aides who were working to set up the gala, according to a lawyer for the Clintons. ("It was missed" by vetters for the campaign, he told us.) In the late 1970s, Paul was convicted of conspiring to defraud the Cuban government of $8.75 million by selling it a nonexistent shipload of coffee beans, and of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He served about 40 months in prison. (Paul claims that he was part of a covert government operation when he was arrested for these crimes.) In the 1980s, he again served time when he violated parole by lying to a Customs officer (again, he claims to have been secretly working with the government.) He chalked up his fourth conviction with a 2005 guilty plea in a securities fraud case ... but we'll get to that shortly.

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

Frankly, this strains credulity--the Clintons not knowing Paul's history--"Missed by the vetters for the campaign?" As Bill Clinton might say, "Give me a break!"

[Emit]

98. Isn't it interesting that the author, Viveca Novak, is the one who tipped off Karl Rove's lawyer?

On December 2, 2005, The New York Times reported that Novak tipped off Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, about the testimony that one of her colleagues at Time Magazine, Matthew Cooper, was giving to the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. The tip off may have caused Rove to change his testimony <1>, and saved him from being indicted on charges of perjury. Rove attributed the changed testimony to the grand jury to faulty memory.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveca_Novak

Viveca Novak's first person account of what transpired between her and Karl Rove's lawyer is up (free link) at Time. It's a biggie. Shorter version (my interpretation): If Karl Rove doesn't get indicted for perjury, it will be because of Viveca Novak. Viveca tipped Luskin off that Karl Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper in either March or May, 2004, after his February grand jury appearance. That sent Luskin on the hunt for documentation, and when he found the Hadley e-mail, he turned it over to Fitz.

What's astonishing about the article is that Viveca didn't tell Time Magazine editors what she had done until after she had hired her own lawyer and debriefed with Fitzgerald. She didn't tell them until she got a formal subpoena. She's now on a "mutually agreed upon" leave of absence from the magazine.


Not only that, but she kept writing
...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/12/11/564/87543

[NorthCarolina]

47. November?? No problem, her schedule should be cleared up WAY before then n/t

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

50. Big Fat K&R!

Typical.

[catgirl]

52. K & R

[Perry Logan]

57. Hillary bashers have NO IDEA how creepy they are.

[fascisthunter]

75. "bashers"

You might think you are fooling people but you aren't.

[Az_lefty]

58. WTF!!! After the election? Total bullshit

[Vinca]

61. That's interesting. If there was nothing there, why wouldn't she

want to get it over with? Putting it off makes you wonder.

[quantass]

64. interestring

[Hart2008]

67. Well so much for the "fully vetted" meme! n/t

[mcollier]

71. The question of trust....

Fool me once...

[Hart2008]

106. It is impossible to "fully vet" the Clinton's because the scandals just keep coming. n/t

[DrZeeLit]

72. Could I ask a question? WHY isn't this NEWS. I mean... hellllloooo... doesn't FRAUD beat PASTORGATE

I don't know about you, but... doesn't possibly committing a FELONY...

(and YES... innocent until proved guilty... which is so interesting considering HC's quick pronouncement of BO's "guilt" about this whole ridiculous wright thing...)

ACTUALLY BREAKING THE LAW (and if found guilty, sentenced to PRISON)

outweigh a

PERSONAL ISSUE, NOT illegal, involving FREEDOM OF RELIGION which (last time I looked at the Bill o' Rights (no, not the Bill O'rally)
was actually ... mmm....

A RIGHT!!!


So, our constitution says NO RELIGIOUS TEST necessary for office.
BUT.... mmm.... I think somewhere we have a FELONY TEST?

Geez... this is sooooo mondo bizarro.

[invictus]

73. K & R

[fascisthunter]

77. Not Good...... Not Good at All (nt)

[cbayer]

79. I can't believe this one got by me.

I'll just file it with the ones on the facist church she goes to, her lesbian affairs, and how she tried to circumvent the constitution when she was 27. That's the file labeled "Things that Clinton haters bring up over and over again that never get any traction because the people that post them have absolutely no credibility".

[Vattel]

85. OMG!!

She tried to circumvent the constitution? How could she do that? The constitution isn't even jewish! Is it just me Cbayer, or is it almost surrealistic to see how many Democrats swallow it all hook, line and sinker?

[cbayer]

86. Vattel, it might be just the two of us.

I feel like I've taken bad drugs some days when I hang around here (ah, those were the days).

Honestly, though, it scares me. They ask no questions, do no research. If it confirms their POV, that's all they need to know.

Sounds a lot like how all those Bush supporters behaved, doesn't it?

[Vattel]

88. It is very creepy

It's like Rush Limbaugh pods are gradually snatching the bodies of registered democrats.

[Vattel]

89. double post, sorry n/t

[Politicalboi]

80. Gee this

Sure is Bush like.

[mcollier]

83. Bill Orielly just called out MSNBC

Bill Orielly accussed NBC of aiding the Iranians in Killing US Troops in Iraq. I shit you not....

[sandiegoboy]

84. What's wrong with being a witness to a case?

Take a hint, guys. There's a reason why this is only news in DU, Daily Kos, and Talking Points Memo. Not in major, respectable news outlets.

[DogPoundPup]

91. Take a hint...

SHE DOES IN FACT HAVE a court date! And you're suggesting there actually are respectable MAJOR NeuS (as in neutered) Outlets and discounting MUCKRAKER?

Tell us more...like where we go for significant, real news!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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?"

[razors edge]

107. Darn, you done been T-Stoned ,

never got a chance to refute your asinine bullshit.

RIP.

[The Magistrate]

90. The Blogger You Have Cited, Ma'am, Seems To Be Hyper-Ventilating Badly

To call this an extremely partisan take on events would be a colossal understatement.

[Maddy McCall]

105. Yeah, I alluded to that upthread....

and you see what happened.

[0007]

92. Good Grief!! Watch out now for a countr attack.

Her spin on this one will be classic. Popcorn time.

[0007]

95. Shocking videos that Hillary does not want you to see.

Check it out!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

[netgui68]

97. And who should be surprised by this?

Not me

[PerfectSage]

103. kick

[quantass]

108. once again Hillary...the American people are always the last on your mind