Posted on 01/28/2006 7:59:25 PM PST by doug from upland
Edited on 01/29/2006 4:22:05 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A roughcut trailer for our film INDICTING HILLARY: One Man's Quest to Hold Hillary Clinton Accountable can now be downloaded from google videos.
This trailer is only a roughcut, and we hope to have an improved version out soon. It only touches the surface in exposing the largest campaign finance fraud ever. We are working furiously to have the first version of the film ready for a conference in Washington, D.C., in early May. Thereafter, we hope to have an extended version of the film for theatrical release. It's all a function of money. No big time Hollywood producer has come forward to open a checkbook as they did for the anti-American's crockumentary of President Bush. Our film really is different. It is filled with something called the truth.
Peter Paul still needs financial help with his civil case. It would have been much easier and he would have been much further along had Judicial Watch actually spent the millions they collected for his case.
We have been working with a very honorable man from the United States Justice Foundation, Gary Kreep, Yes, Hillary, Bill, and others are going to be under oath in a Los Angeles courtroom sometime later this year. Spinning attorney David Kendall is making his last gasp effort to have Hillary removed from the case.
For those who do not know the story, here are 26 episodes of PETER PAUL AND HILLARY
Great info is available on HillCAP.org.
NOTE TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON -- this is not going away. You have denied, delayed, dissembled, and distracted for far too long. You have been in this scandal from your fat ankles all the way up to your eyeballs. We have the smoking guns to prove that you allowed your campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman, to file a third fraudulent report to the FEC on July 30, 2001. Your denials are BS. Even you cannot hide forever.
But thanks for your observation.
That would be beautiful Doug,have a Clinton sick-o-fant buy it on E-Bay for some enormous amount. Little would they know it was contributing to that scumbag Senators demise...GREAT job on all of this so far!
Thanks. Yep, I'd love to use a Clinton fan's money for the film.
We will never educate the Kool-Aide drinkers. We need to solidify our side and influence the middle.
Did you check your FReepmail? Please do so.
Democrats fear Hillary too risky
The Australian ^ | January 30, 2006 | Sarah Baxter
Posted on 01/29/2006 6:17:41 PM PST by demlosers
HILLARY Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign is running
Leon Panetta, Mr Clinton's former chief of staff, said there was "nervousness" among Democrats about backing such a controversial figure at a time when many Americans believe President George W.Bush has polarised the country.
Like Mr McCurry, he wondered whether Ms Clinton was "the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition" and resurrect the "hate side of the political agenda".
"Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? We've been through the Clintons, we've been through the Gores, we've been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics," Mr Panetta said.
Mr Bush described Ms Clinton as "formidable" in an interview ahead of his annual State of the Union address tomorrow. Republicans are determined not to underestimate her voter appeal in 2008, particularly as they are short of well-known candidates. "This is an unusual year because this is the first time there hasn't been a kind of natural successor in the party," Mr Bush said.
The Democrats have a rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are anxious to win, but he remains little known on the national scene.
The doubts about Ms Clinton's electoral viability have surfaced as she romps towards re-election as New York senator this year.
She has already seen off one Republican challenger, whose campaign was reduced to tatters, and last week dispatched another, Ed Cox, the son-in-law of former president Richard Nixon. He turned down his party's increasingly desperate pleas to stand.
Ms Clinton's modest success with voters in small-town upstate New York is taken by some as proof she can win over conservatives, although according to last week's poll, 90per cent of Republicans would definitely not vote for her.
New Republic magazine, the left-of-centre weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the south and midwest.
"She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage," it warned.
Ms Clinton's hawkish stance on the war on terror, Iraq and Iran has infuriated the anti-war movement. Molly Ivins, a left-wing commentator, wrote last week that she would not support her for president.
"Enough," she fumed. "Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone."
Mr McCurry believes that, contrary to popular belief, Ms Clinton is a conviction politician rather than "a wild-eyed liberal", but says that were she to become president her divisive reputation could get in the way of her program for government.
"It would not be a comfortable place to be hunkered in a bunker for four to eight years getting pelted by the Republicans with rotten tomatoes," he said.
Ms Clinton is waiting for her Senate race to be over in November before making a final decision on whether to stand. There is no doubt she would love to return to the White House, this time with Bill as "first gentleman".
The further away he is from the centre of power, the more Mr Clinton has gained in popularity. If he returns to the fray, the cash-for-pardons scandal at the end of his presidency and the minutiae of his sex life are likely to be re-examined. And after two Bushes in the White House, two President Clintons could be regarded as overly dynastic.
In the Senate, Ms Clinton has forged political alliances on such issues as the environment and healthcare with Senator John McCain, a 2008 Republican contender. According to Mr McCurry, she is enjoying the role of consensus-maker.
"She clearly understands there is a real need to re-establish some sense of bipartisan co-operation and has to ask herself: 'Could I be that kind of leader?'," he said.
"That takes you to the question the polls raise, which is: will she get that opportunity?"
The Sunday Times
Hillary Knew, David Knew,
Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark
by John Armor
The Washington Post has run an extended whitewash of dishonest conduct in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign for the Senate from New York. The article, “House of Cards,” ran today, 8 October, 2005. The money quote, the one when Tom Sawyer really slaps the white paint on the fence, is in the 14th paragraph:
“ ‘Who knew?’ turned out to be a $1.176 million question. Federal law enforcement officials eventually confirmed that the gala, night of a thousand egos -- when Cher sang "If I Could Turn Back Time," the president cried for the cameras and con artists hobnobbed with the most powerful couple in the world -- cost somebody at least $1.176 million to produce. Yet Hillary Clinton's joint fundraising committee eventually reported that the gala cost just $401,419 in donated goods and services.”
Source: Washington Post
In the following paragraph, the reporter, April Witt, attempts to answer the question by noting that David Rosen, “the only person charged with criminal conduct,” was found not guilty. That finding does not establish that neither Hillary Clinton, nor her chief fund-raiser David Rosen, knew about the fraud. For example, does the not guilty verdict for O.J. Simpson mean that he didn’t know who killed his ex-wife?
The reporter spends most of her article savaging the witnesses against Hillary Clinton. But if no one could be found responsible based on testimony of witnesses who have themselves committed crimes, no member of the Mafia would ever have gone to jail. Reporters, like prosecutors, have to take their witnesses as they find them. Sometimes, apparently “bad” people do tell the truth.
Had Ms. Witt done her job competently, she would have found out that both Hillary Clinton AND David Rosen knew about the $716,000 swindle in her campaign, BEFORE the final Report on that campaign was filed with the Federal Election Commission. The papers on Peter Paul’s civil suit against Hillary Clinton and others was served on both her and Rosen, before that final report was filed, under oath, with the FEC. The papers included receipts and copies of checks to prove the real cost of the Clinton Gala, as found as a fact by the FEC.
Both the false FEC report and the court documents including their date of service, are matters of public record. Any reporter, even one from the Post, could have found these documents. And then she could have included them in her story. There are more than a thousand people, me included, who knew these critical facts months ago. They have been all over the blogosphere that long. The reporter would have been clued in had she written about “the truth of the Clinton 2000 campaign,” rather than “colorful con men you might find amusing.”
Not until the fourth page of a five page article does the Post get to the reason why the Clinton Campaign would lie by three-quarters of million dollars about Gala costs. It was to free up that amount of apparent “gains” from the Gala to be spent for all purposes in the critical stage of her Senate race.
The only way to squeeze the truth out of this lengthy Post article is to read the facts from back to front, and ignore all the personal profiles of the colorful characters involved. Buried in this long article is a small but important article, that Hillary Clinton and her cronies knew about and benefitted from the largest fraud in federal election history. It’s a shame that the reporter utterly missed the very story that she was supposedly writing about.
Good work! Stay the course Doug, stay the course.
I like the noted hypocrisy of "culture of corruption."
All done on both sites..
I will try to drive this home!
Thanks for the ping doug! Keep keeping after her...
BUMP!
Thanks for the ping!
Did I see that no talent ass-clown Micheal Bolton performing at that concert?
You did indeed. Cher, Diana Ross, Patti LaBelle, Michael Bolton, Sugar Ray, Toni Braxton, Melissa Etheridge, and Paul Anka.
Thank you for the ping, and the post!
"If a ruler pays attention to falsehood,
All his ministers become wicked.
When the wicked increase, transgression increases;
But the righteous will see their fall.
Proverbs 29:12,16"
Words to live by, and remember.
I am praying for Peter Paul.
Doug, you are doing yeoman's work.
Thank you so much for keeping this in the forefront.
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.