Posted on 10/23/2006 2:29:16 PM PDT by doug from upland
I figured that was just a factual statement.
I'm sad now.
:-(
Maybe they "know" but have no proof of the sort that would hold up in court. Remember, the level of proof required for the press to really start hounding Clinton about anything is incredibly high.
re: Satan's Daughter
I made that statement on C-SPAN at the 1993 FReeper victory brunch. I can't prove it, but it does make sense.
Watch this --- http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZY2b3Db3dGE
Or dead in central park from a "suicide".
You mean Hillary isn't a lesbian?
My dialup can't do videos. Is there a transcript I can read? I vaguely recall Hillary having made a declaration but I don't recall which facts might be provably false.
Is there an alternative to having Spencer air this material? Can FreeRepublic take up a collection?
Highlights of the video link:
1. Kendall turned in declaration on April 2, 2006. I was in the courtroom.
2. She swore that she could and would testify competently.
3. Next sentence she claims to have met Peter Paul in early 2000.
4. We show 2000 video of Peter and Hillary at a fundraiser at a private home in Los Angeles. Hillary and Peter talk about how they first met.
5. They first met in 1993, when Peter, who represented Fabio, arranged for a private meeting. In the room were Peter, Hillary, Bill, Dom DeLuise, Danny DaVito, and a WH protographer. The event was the Italian-American Foundation Dinner.
6. Peter had Fabio chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose. She squatted on the floor trying not to be picked up, but he picked her up anyway.
7. In the home video, Hillary promises that she will finally send Peter the pictures she promised.
8. Hillary recalls the Amazon roses sent by Fabio (actually sent by Peter on Fabio's behalf) to try to get her to send the photos.
9. When Bill spoke at the 1994 Italian-American Foundation Dinner, he talked about the impact the Fabio incident had on her.
10. Her claim that she met Peter in 2000 is preposterous and a lie.
I gather that the significance of the lie is that Hillary would have been quite acquainted with Peter at the time that Peter supplied the "in-kind" contribution, thereby making it unreasonable to believe that Hillary did not know of the contribution that he made. Is that correct?
I missed the significance of this the first time around. Poor Hillary seems unable to remember in 2006 events which were quite memorable to her in 1993.
Was Hillary's declaration sworn by her to be true, under penalty of perjury?
She probably did meet him in 2000. Did she state in the declaration that she FIRST met him in 2000? Some liars are pretty clever when it comes to choosing words that have just enough ambiguity to permit alternate interpretations.
The significance is that she lied in the first statement in the declaration.
She remembered it very well. To believe that she could not remember when they first met when it came time for a sworn declaration is preposterous.
re: first met
Peter and I laughed and discussed that when I first saw the declaraton on April 7i, 2006. Yes, Hillary can try to make the claim that she met him in early 2000. That would be a true statement, but for purposes of the declaration, she is going to have to do better than that.
If I understand correctly, Hillary has been successful so far at separating herself from the case; that is, she is not a defendant, though the matter is on appeal.
Does this lie support her claim that she deserves not to be a defendant? Does the appeal cover this lie?
More generally, is there a mechanism outside the fact-finding of the actual civil trial to hold Hillary accountable for the lie? Can a motion be made to the judge to hold Hillary in contempt for swearing to such a lie?
BJ's house of cards tumbled when the DNA on the dress revealed the nature of the perjury and obstruction of justice that was needed to cover up his involvement with Lewinsky. Do you anticipate a similar chain of events for Hillary? Is there somebody today sitting on a pile of tapes of which all the other players are unaware? Has the discovery process gotten under way? Is every person being deposed to be asked regarding permanent records of relevant conversations?
It's baffling..you'd think this guy would try ANYTHING, he's such an underdog. Maybe he values his life?
A further question is; can a judge order Hillary to re-submit the declaration with the lie corrected?
Especially if there is an entire line of connected lies in the declaration, it would be quite a show to have her correct the declaration "one lie at a time". What entertainment.
As you have pointed out, I think, the fact that Hillary's campaign has had to file corrected statements of donations argues strongly for the fact that her campaign has been, at best, incompetent. Similarly, having to respond multiple times to a court's orders to correct falsehoods might get people's attention.
On a related note, isn't Kendall still Hillary's attorney? Doesn't he have a duty to the Bar to distance himself from illegal behavior? I recall that his role in this has been questioned. Do the facts support a challenge of his continued involvement? Wasn't it Bob Bennet that disappeared suddenly from BJ's side when the DNA made clear that perjury had been committed?
Who has to sign the FEC report? Can't Lee challenge this himself? I would be upset if Hillary claimed that I had donated a dime to her campaign. What sort of consequences are attached to fraudulent or even just mistaken reports?
If these fraudulent reports are intended to falsify the record as a means of frustrating fact-finding in the civil trial, is this not potentially a conspiracy to obstruct justice? Somebody came up with a number to put with Stan Lee's name? Is the claim that Lee donated cash, or is it an "in-kind" contribution? Will the conspirators, if that is what they are, be able to claim that there was confusion as to who the contributor of the "in-kind" contribution was?
If Stan Lee Media was the presumed beneficiary of any later involvement by BJ Klinton, doesn't that make Stan Lee Media the contributor of "in-kind" contributions intended to win that later quid-pro-quo?
At the very least, the creation of the number suggests that somebody carried out a process which addressed what Lee's contribution was. Such a person could be expected to have some basis for such a decision. Perhaps this process is the equivalent to BJ's blue dress; that is, incontrovertible evidence that somebody associated with the campaign knew exactly what had transpired.
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.