[doug from upland]

FReepers, take a radio to work today or listen online (with the permission of your boss, of course). Please send this story to your email list. If you could help make Hillary's life a little more miserable, wouldn't that make you feel good? Make no mistake. She is heading for a return trip to the White House, and that would be a disaster for this great nation. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country to stop Hillary.

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

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 - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - on the Sean Hannity Show in his first live appearance since he became Senator Clinton’s worst whistle blowing nightmare in 2001.

-- doug from upland

Thanks for the heads up, ajolympian2004!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[nutmeg]

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 - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - on the Sean Hannity Show in his first live appearance since he became Senator Clinton’s worst whistle blowing nightmare in 2001.

-- doug from upland

[nutmeg]

Bumping the thread...

Doug, I haven't heard Sean mention anything about this yet. Do you know when Peter Paul will be on the show?

[nutmeg]

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 - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - on the Sean Hannity Show in his first live appearance since he became Senator Clinton’s worst whistle blowing nightmare in 2001.

-- doug from upland

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[doug from upland]

Sean just announced appearance of Peter Paul with exclusive video of fundraiser event. See, I was telling the truth after all.

[doug from upland]

TONIGHT --- Hannity and Colmes, 9:30 pm Eastern

WEDNESDAY --- Hannity radio, 4:30 pm Eastern

[doug from upland]

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.

[pollywog]

listening to Sean and waiting to hear PP.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

[doug from upland]

I guess after eight years of almost no TV watching, I'm going to have to bring back cable. Can someone tape this show for me tonight?

[NormalGuy]

died in a prison cell after he was denied the heart medication he needed to remain alive.

PVS precedent, no doubt.

[doug from upland]

I have already left a message on Ray Hernandez's machine. Why can't these people try to do something without bias? I write partisan stuff, but I make it clear what I am doing. I don't purport to be a journalist writing something down the middle.

Let's start with this, Mr. Hernandez. The USJF is not an anti-Clinton group. They have worked on First Amendment and other issues. They have fought in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance. Hernandez's editor needs to apologize for the headline. I will have more to say about this article in another episode of PETER PAUL AND HILLARY.

=================================================================================

Anti-Clinton Group Joins With Former Clinton Donor NY Times ^ | May 3, 2005 | RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, May 2 - The man whose claims are behind the recent criminal indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former fund-raising director is collaborating with a conservative group in California on a project to publicize potentially damaging information about the Clintons.

The man, Peter Paul, has enlisted the support of the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group, to start the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project, a venture meant to focus public attention on a 2000 fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton that is at the center of the federal government's criminal case.

Once dismissed as yet another anti-Clinton gadfly, Mr. Paul has suddenly become a major source of problems for the Clintons and their political associates.

A well-connected figure with a criminal history that dates back to the 1970's, Mr. Paul says he organized the star-studded fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000 to win Mr. Clinton's support on a business venture he was undertaking. But when his relationship with the Clintons soured after the event, he turned on them.

He has accused the Clinton campaign in a civil suit of falsely reporting that the August 2000 gala cost far less than the nearly $2 million he claims to have spent to organize the event. This January, federal authorities produced an indictment charging that David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, had underreported the cost of the affair.

Responding to Mr. Paul's latest endeavor, David E. Kendall, a lawyer for the Clintons, called Mr. Paul's character into question. "Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions, currently in federal custody," he said. "Most of his civil suit has already been dismissed and the remainder has no merit."

The anti-Clinton project that is being undertaken by Mr. Paul and his conservative allies in California will make use of documents and other materials that Mr. Paul says stem from his role producing the 2000 event, including bank statements, canceled checks and film of him with the Clintons.

Gary Kreep, the executive director for the justice foundation, said it had established a Web site, www.hillcap.org, that would provide updated information concerning the criminal case against Mr. Rosen, as well as updated information about a civil suit that Mr. Paul has filed against the Clintons. (The site was still under construction on Monday.) He said the foundation planned to use its existing direct-mail operation to both raise money and disseminate information about those cases.

Mr. Kreep also said the foundation planned to cover the legal costs from the civil suit, in which Mr. Paul claims he gave close to $2 million in services and donations to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign based on promises that Mr. Clinton would join an Internet venture of his. Mr. Paul claims these promises were never fulfilled.

"We want to get to the truth of all this and make sure the public knows about it," Mr. Kreep said.

In a separate interview, Mr. Paul went even further, predicting that the case could thwart any political aspirations that Mrs. Clinton has beyond New York. "This fund-raiser will ultimately be viewed as her Chappaquiddick and cost her the presidency," he said. "I've already got her campaign finance director indicted."

The timing of all this is troublesome for Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, who is up for re-election next year. While Mrs. Clinton is apparently not a subject of the investigation, questions about the 2000 fund-raiser have given her political enemies plenty of ammunition.

In fact, Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that repeatedly sued the Clintons during their White House years, initially championed Mr. Paul's case. But a few months ago, Judicial Watch abruptly severed ties with Mr. Paul, who, in turn, accused the group of merely using his case to raise millions of dollars from people who dislike the former president and first lady.

The attention being given to Mr. Paul's charges underscore the growing concerns within the Clinton camp that Mrs. Clinton will be a primary target of national Republicans in 2006, despite her overwhelming popularity among voters in New York.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers have good reason to harbor such concerns. Republicans in New York and elsewhere around the country are warning their supporters that Mrs. Clinton will be in a position to run for the presidency in 2008 if she is not defeated in New York next year.

But that said, Republicans are having trouble recruiting top-tier candidates like Rudolph W. Giuliani or George E Pataki to run against her. Instead, the list of possible challengers being mentioned include Edward F. Cox, a lawyer who is the son-in-law of Richard M. Nixon, and Dr. Antonia C. Novello, New York's state health commissioner, who was previously United States surgeon general.

[doug from upland]

Ping

[doug from upland]

The Clintons must have been shocked when they found out about Paul's background. Hillary gave back his $2,000 contribution. The $2 million, however, was not returned.

[doug from upland]

Trial for fraud and extortion. The trial court allows the suit. The appellate suit allows the suit. The California Supreme Court allows the suit. This baby is going forward.

[doug from upland]

Not enough time on TV. He needs to do lots of radio time.

[doug from upland]

Here we go. Colmes starts the smear.

[Libloather]

Hannity & Colmes will have Madame Dimwit suggest someone else besides Bolton for the UN spot. Can't wait.

Peter Paul on now...

[b4its2late]

He did real well Doug. This is going to get very interesting.

He had liberal #1 Colmes in a hissy fit. Gotta love it. I'm going to send him some cash for sure.......

I hope he's ready to be dragged backasswards through all kinds of crap. I wish him the best of luck.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Don't be a CINO (Conservative in Name Only)
Don't listen to CINO's in politics,
the Main Stream CINO media,
and even here on Free Republic.

Remember all who told you not to worry about klintoon, hitlery and reno
after the 2000 election?

Remember all who said Ashcroft would prosecute them.

Remember Chinagate, Pardongate, Waco, Vince Foster, the Jewish town in NY etc., etc., etc. ?

Well reno ran against Jeb Bush and hitlery wants to beat Hanoi Kerry in 08

Are YOU willing to listen to the CINO's again?