Posted on 04/18/2007 11:54:41 AM PDT by doug from upland
Read the Appellate Brief for background, particularly beginning at page 50 --- APPELLATE BRIEF
PETER PAUL AND HILLARY: The Smoking Gun Has Been Uncovered!
After fighting a two-year battle that included heated requests to the U.S. Attorney in New York, Peter Paul and his counsel, the U.S. Justice Foundation have finally received copies of videos made in Paul’s offices during 2000. Broomstick One is going to finally be grounded.
This smoking gun video taped evidence of crimes being committed by Hillary Clinton, which may have been withheld from all the judicial and congressional investigations conducted from 2001 - 2005, will now be released as part of the first ever documentary on Hillary Clinton. The evidence is being added to the rough cut of the documentary “EXPOSING HILLARY” (new working title). The new release date is expected to be some time in May. Plausible deniability for Hillary is going to be gone forever. Citizens should be outraged that this key piece of evidence that shows Hillary's direct involvement in coordinating and soliciting illegal expenditures and donations for her Senate campaign was withheld from all those judicial and FEC investigations that exonerated Hillary for lack of evidence!
Despite the mainstream media conspiracy of silence in reporting on the multi-million dollar election and business frauds Hillary directed to win her 2000 senate seat and her re-election, depositions in Paul v Clinton will be take place this year. That is not good timing for Hillary.
The first ever civil fraud case against a Senator and President, (see HILLCAP.ORG) which caused the "red herring" indictment and trial of Hillary's finance director and the only fine assessed against her campaign for election law fraud, is now about to reveal its own "Rodney King style video" catching Hillary red handed in the act of violating criminal election law statutes!
Hillary's sworn declaration in the case--which elevates the denials and non-denials that Hillary was famous for in front of the Whitewater grand juries to new heights of contempt for the legal process--will be shown to be a perjured sworn statement.
She is not going to avoid the inevitable, whether she is brought back into the case as a defendant or as a witness. Hillary is going to be grilled under oath and confronted with a large body of evidence. This time, "I don't recall" isn't go to fly. Not this time, Hillary.
Those who have followed the sordid tale of how Hillary convinced and coerced Peter Paul to spend more than $1.2 million (between $1.6 and $2 million) for her 2000 Senate campaign know that Hillary has supervised the filing of four false FEC reports, her campaign treasurer admitted to deliberately hiding over $721,000, and the FEC fine was $35,000.
The mainstream media has paid no attention to the FEC General Counsel's second report, which was issued on Sept. 30, 2005. Within the report was the following:
The commission previously voted to take no action with regard to Senator Clinton pending the investigation of this matter because the complaint and responses provided no basis to dismiss the complaint outright or to open an investigation. Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowlingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions. Because the investigation has shown that Clinton for Senate did not accept any "advancements" of prohibited or excessive funds from the other participants, it would appear that Senator Clinton similarly did not accept any illegal contributions. Therefore, we recommend that the Commission find no reason to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton violated any provision of the Act or regulations in connection with this matter, and close the file as to her.
Pursuant to Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."
Criminal sanctions come into play when the aggregate amount totals $25,000. In Paul’s case, the amount was 50 times that amount.
Hillary's counsel, David Kendall, has maintained for several years that Hillary has fully cooperated with the investigation. Well, Mr. Kendall, are you ready for the smoking gun? It will be the shot heard 'round the world in 2007 and will change everything for the woman who believes she is destined to be our queen.
Evidence will be shown that proves Hillary’s direct involvement in the money contributed by Paul. Despite Hillary’s denials and obfuscations, it is going to be shown that Hillary’s actions made all of the money donated by Paul a hard money contribution. The limit at the time was $2,000, the amount Paul contributed in the form of a check at the Spago luncheon he sponsored and hosted.
One of the concert headliners was Cher, who was not a volunteer or friend of Hillary that perhaps could have created a gray area. Per Hillary’s own admission, she had never before spoken with Cher. She directly solicited Cher’s in-kind contribution, the value of which has never been declared.
Hillary knows the law well. That is why she declared the in-kind services of her friend, the famous photographer Annie Leibovitz. She knew it had to be declared. In typical Clintonesque fashion, of course, Hillary underreported the value of the photographer’s services. Leibovitz charges $25,000 for such services.
Evidence will prove that all of the money contributed by Paul was for the direct benefit of Hillary’s campaign. It all had to be declared as hard money, and Hillary knew that was the case.
There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the recent firing of U.S. attorneys. What should happen to a U.S. attorney who may well have obstructed justice by withholding evidence to protect Hillary? What should become of the former Chief of Public Integrity, Judge Noel Hillman, who prosecuted David Rosen instead of Hillary Clinton and Andrew Grossman?
The Justice Department? The Bush Justice Department? The Justice Department that Alberto Gonzalez is in charge of? I don't think so...
I know. The alternative is to just give up. I’m not giving up.
Good. Don’t give up. Nobody should, but damn it is getting really hard not to.
The safety net is whoever is running closest to her in the polls right before the super primary...
Good luck and thank you for all your work and bravery.
I saw the 750K number in the post. Based my math on that. My bad.
That’s okay. 721K was the amount the FEC determined was deliberately hidden.
Bump for later.
Thanks thanks.
AMEN.
BTTT
I’m a pretty poverty striken soul. But I can pray. Any other way I can encourage you, please let me know.
We MUST NOT give up.
The stakes are toooooo horrendous.
Which US Attorney?
Wow!!! Doug, you da man.
We will probably save that for a press conference.
“C’mon lawdude; you don’t have to resort to calling Hillary names.”
Very good! I sure didn’t see that.
I think the effectiveness of this effort will depend a lot on how it is presented. If it will be presented as an unbiased, informative documentary it may get legs with some media. If it is going to be an obvious hit piece on Hillary with stupid pictures of her, it will be preaching to the FR choir and be ignored by those I would like to recommend it to. I hope some of it will use an interview format. How are we going to be able to see it? YouTube?
I wish you the very best of luck.
Mark
When the jury box does not work, we are fortunate we have the ballot box. The alternative is...
Thanks Doug. Thanks Peter.
You are going to like what you see.
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.