The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.Posted on 04/11/2006 7:35:31 AM PDT by doug from upland
Note: although Hillary has been removed as a defendant (it will be appealed) in the case Paul v. Clinton, she will be ordered to testify. She and her defendant husband are expected to be in Los Angeles for a sworn deposition in as soon as 60 days. Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?
scroll down for the roughcut video trailer -- INDICTING HILLARY. We are behind schedule but will have a least a short version of the film out during this campaign season. Stan Lee is sitting to the left of Hillary at the gala concert. Tendo Oto, the illegal Japanese donor and attendee (never reported) is seated behind her. On Hillary's right is seated the man who is a sexual predator, a disbarred attorney, a perjurer, an obstructor of justice, a suborner of perjury, a witness intimidator, a serial philanderer, a sociopathic liar, and an impeached former president, who is the only one able to compete with Jimmy Carter as Worst Ever.
secret conciliation agreement in Dec. 2005
Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with legendary superhero creator Stan Lee. The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.
On the link above - 4th false FEC report - turn to page 34. You will see that a $225,000 in-kind contribution is attributed to Stan Lee personally.
Lee was very surpised when I told him that, on the 4th FEC report from the Hillary 2000 campaign, he is listed as the largest donor -- $225,000. He could not understand how that could be. He has testified under oath that he never gave any money. He didn't have any money to give. He told that to the FBI, to the FEC, and to the Justice Department.
Treasurer Andrew Grossman, Hillary, and, of course, David Kendall, know very well that this is the fourth fraudulent report. They know very well that Lee gave no money. This continuing crime is being pulled off in broad daylight, and the Justice Department does not seem to want to do anything about it.
That report is the 4th time that Andrew Grossman and Hillary Clinton have had the opportunity to tell the truth to the FEC. Four strikes and you're out? Apparently, not in Hillary's world.
Peter Paul, the real largest senate donor of all time, is still not listed on the report. His company is listed, but he is the one who personally gave the money. Hillary is refusing to allow his name to appear on the report so that she can maintain the lie that her campaign would never take any money from Peter Paul. She has been sticking to that lie for over 5 1/2 years.
As the Democrats have created a phony issue called the "culture of corruption," you would think that the GOP would use this greatest campaign finance fraud ever as an issue to counter attack. You would be wrong. I've made several calls to the RNC and spoken with several people in different departments. They have not issued a statement. They continue to take the onslaught from the Democrats and feebly say, "No mas," like Roberto Duran.
Will the presumed candidate for senate in New York, John Spencer, finally start talking about this issue? How about Hillary Dem opponent, Mark Greenstein? We shall see.
===================================================
Stan Lee Deposition Feb 23, 2005, Los Angeles... Excerpt from complete deposition.
p.66:
Question to Stan Lee: Okay. And is it your understanding that you
3 didn't contribute anything or you weren't supposed to
4 have contributed anything for this event?
5 A. I didn't contribute anything.
And the trial date is?
Excellent news.
If it's not too much trouble, could you explain why The Hildabeaste was excused as a defendant? Is this unusual?
She was released based on an anti-SLAPP provision in the law. That is designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits during campaigns that could chill free speech. It certainly should have had nothing to do with this case --- this was a case of business fraud.
I appreciate your interest in determining what an inkind contribution would be that cost $225,000- Under FEC law, if a contributor pays expenses of a campaign, e.g. the expenses to produce the biggest fund raising event of the campaign, those payments to third parties that save the campaign the need to expoend its money, is a cash, in-kind contribution. I paid more than $1.2 million in these types of expenses for Hillary's campaign so she could raise $1.5 million in net donations from others, much of it hard money. Hillary is attempting to attribute $225,000 of my $1.2 million in payments for her benefit to Stan Lee even though he has maintained he never donated anything, because Stan made a loan to my holding company and I wrote on the check I was using the money for her campaign. Because I comingled the loan proceeds from Stan with more than $2 million in other money I had, the FEC agreed that it couldnt even try to attribute a loan as a contribution. But that didnt stop Hillary from lying to the FEC and the voters yet again.
bttt
IMPERIUS REX!!!
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.