PETER PAUL AND HILLARY: No. 1 – Peter Paul to Make Big Announcement on Hannity Show (Update, #92)

Note: this is the first in a series of stories regarding the events surrounding the business relationship of entrepreneur Peter Paul, William Jefferson Clinton, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is a story that Hillary does not want you to know.

Entrepreneur Peter Paul spent almost two million dollars of his own money in 2000 for a gala Hollywood farewell to Bill Clinton and fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. It was the largest fundraiser for her senate campaign. Paul will be appearing today on the Sean Hannity Show in his first live appearance since he became Senator Clinton’s worst whistle blowing nightmare in 2001.

For over four years, Hillary has gotten away with the biggest campaign finance fraud in U.S. history. Until Hillary, no U.S. Senator’s campaign finance director has ever been indicted for election fraud. A four-count indictment against David Rosen was unsealed in Federal Court in Los Angeles in January. He faces up to 15 years in jail for lying about Paul’s contributions in reports to the Federal Election Commission and is scheduled to go on trial in Los Angeles later this month. There are witnesses, documents, and conversations obtained by Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law, Ray Reggie, while he was wearing an FBI wire.

You do not want to miss the show. Paul will have a big announcement regarding a new initiative to hold Hillary accountable through his landmark civil law suit against the Clintons for fraud and extortion.

Those who have followed the saga of the Clintons have observed that it always seems as if the Clintons lead a charmed life and manage to stay one step ahead of the law. That dynamic, however, may be about to change.

Paul has been hammered by both the Clinton spin machine and their mainstream media lapdogs who love all things Clinton. It is finally time to hear his side of the story. You will be hearing it, and you may find it compelling.

James McDougal, a former business partner of the Clintons, once described them as “tornadoes that sweep through people’s lives and leave nothing but chaos in their wake.” McDougal, who posed a danger to the Clintons as the star witness in their Whitewater business dealings, died in a prison cell after he was denied the heart medication he needed to remain alive.

In this series of reports on FreeRepublic.com, you will hear chilling accounts of what happened to Paul and his family. There are often very serious consequences for those who might stand in the way of the Clintons.

We presume that Ann Lewis, David Kendall, the lovely and gracious Helen Thomas, and the rest of the usual suspects will be tuning in to the show and listening with keen interest. Perhaps even Hillary might be curious enough to listen if she is not too busy reading Paul’s FBI file, stiffing a waitress, giving a pro partial birth abortion speech, kissing Yasser Arafat's widow, checking on her cattle futures, or calling someone of Jewish heritage an expletive. She is a very busy woman.

Hillary, it might be a good idea to pay attention. Come to FreeRepublic and choose a clever screen name. Perhaps "unindicted co-conspirator." We would find that one mildly amusing.

Hillary Clinton, Peter Paul is prepared to carry on a fight with you as no one has yet fought you and your loving husband. Let's get ready to RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLE!

In “Ratheresque” fashion, I want to sign off after each of these episodes with a one-word farewell. Dan used “courage.” Although he doesn’t have a copyright on the word, I don’t want to plagiarize it. Instead, I will use the Latin “virtus.” I hope that is okay with you, Dan, and also hope you are enjoying your semi-retirement, compliments of the FReepers.

Democratic Party "Leper" Endorses Bush
By Jerome Zeifman
Insight Magazine | August 2, 2004

During the Clinton administration I was described jokingly by Insight Managing Editor Paul M. Rodriguez as "The Leper of the Democratic Party." Since then I have continued to be a renegade Democrat -- and I am now supporting the re-election of President George W. Bush. It started with Bill Clinton.

I had first met Clinton in 1975, when he was courting Hillary Rodham. Over the years my unfavorable impressions of him have increased.

In 1975 Hillary Rodham was working under my supervision on the Nixon impeachment staff of the House Judiciary Committee. As it was later described in the New York Times by Bernard Nussbaum, who became Clinton's White House counsel, when Hillary introduced Bill to us she said: "He's running for Congress...One day he's gonna become president."

Hillary had been recommended to Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino (D-N.J.) by Burke Marshall, her former professor at Yale Law. Marshall had served as assistant attorney general in the Kennedy administration. Later he became Kennedy's lawyer during the Chappaquiddick affair and his chief political strategist. With the advent of Watergate, Marshall had developed a plan to elect Ted Kennedy to the presidency in 1976. As a result, at Yale his students dubbed him: "The attorney general in waiting of the Camelot government in exile."

In 1975, Hillary hitched her political wagon to Marshall's rising star. Once on our staff she conferred regularly with Marshall, in violation of congressional rules against disclosure of confidential materials.

Under Marshall's direction Hillary worked to forestall Richard Nixon's impeachment and keep him "twisting in the wind" until the end of his term. This would have denied the untarnished vice president, Gerry Ford, a chance to restore respectability to the Republican Party. It also would have enhanced the prospects for Kennedy to be elected in the upcoming elections.

In pursuit of Marshall's objective Hillary lied to me and the committee on several occasions. Thus, after the disbanding of our impeachment staff I decided that I could not recommend her for future employment in government service. She went off to Arkansas and married Bill Clinton.

By the Democratic presidential primaries of 1992 I had seen enough to fear that Bill Clinton had character flaws and I supported the nomination of Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. After Clinton won the nomination he began to tout the notion that he and Hillary would give the country a "two-for-one" presidency. But despite my experience with Hillary and my uneasiness about the character of her husband I voted for him in the presidential election.

Four years later, in 1996, I began (for the first time in my career) to consider voting for a Republican. I discussed Clinton vs. Dole with former House Judiciary Committee chairman Jack Brooks of Texas. More than anyone else I knew in the Democratic Party, Brooks had close-up personal dealings with both Dole and Clinton. Jack's opinion was: "Slick Willy is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch...I will probably hold my nose and vote for him."

When I asked him for his opinion of Sen. Bob Dole, Brooks told me: "Bob is a straight arrow. ... He is not deceitful. ... He keeps his word. ... He says what he means and means what he says." To this day I don't know how Jack finally voted. I would like to believe that he squared his shoulders and voted for Dole. But after my conversation with Chairman Brooks I decided to support Sen. Dole.

On Oct. 25, 1996, I published a long article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Cancer on the Presidency." A few excerpts follow:

"In my view there is now probable cause to consider our president and first lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after the Nov. 5 election.

"The misdeeds of the Clinton administration have fallen into a pattern of deceit and corruption that now clearly justifies denying Mr. Clinton a second term.

"By all accounts Robert Dole is a man of personal integrity. His principles are conservative, and I will continue to oppose them. Yet because I must remain true to my traditional Democratic moral values, I will vote for Mr. Dole."

My article resonated in the media. It was republished in other newspapers and on numerous Websites. To my surprise presidential then-candidate Ross Perot published a televised "infomercial" quoting from the article. And, not surprisingly, the article came to the attention of Hillary. Under her orders a high-ranking White House staffer telephoned the law firm of which I had been a member. He told one of the firm's senior Democratic partners, "That bastard is killing us. Shut him up!"

The partner in turn warned me: "If you ever try to set foot in our office again, I will throw you out bodily."

More recently I have decided to support George W. Bush (as have such Democrats as Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, Jimmy Carter's attorney general Griffin Bell, and former New York mayor Ed Koch). As for John Kerry I see him as a demagogue who panders to the lowest common denominator of our party. He also fits Edmund Burke's description of the kind of politician who is no more than "a weather cock, moving in the direction of every changing political wind."

Yet, despite my support for two Republican presidential candidates, I intend to remain a Democrat. My reason is simple: I have not lost hope that one day a new generation of Democrats will win our continuous fight to redeem our party's political soul.

Jerome Zeifman is a lifelong Democrat. He served as chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during its Nixon impeachment proceedings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.