Posted on 06/22/2007 5:23:59 PM PDT by doug from upland
THIS TAPE IS EVIDENCE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD
Clear evidence is now available for all to see. Hillary Clinton and her agents solicited, participated, and coordinated an illegal hard money, in-kind, $1.6 million donation from Peter Paul.
For six years, her attorney, spokesholes, and hired political thugs have denied that she did anything wrong. David Kendall has been saying she fully cooperated. That is simply not true. To the best of our knowledge neither she nor Kelly Craighead has testified before the FEC. Neither of them was called in the David Rosen criminal case. That case was a sham with a presiding judge who was a Clinton appointee.
Finally, we are getting closer and closer to the magic day when Hillary is going to have to raise her right hand and be grilled by someone who will not be as meek and mild as Ken Starr.
I was in the courtroom of Judge Aurelio Munoz in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 7, 2006. Kendall produced Hillary's sworn declaration that I have labeled as a work of fiction.
In that declaration, however, Hillary made one gigantic error. She accidentally told the truth when she said:
"In the summer of 2000, I knew Mr. Gary Smith and believed his work to be professional and of very high quality. I remember that he was asked to produce a fundraising event for my Senate campaign, which was held on August 12, 2000."
"For my Senate campaign." She did not say it was for her joint fundraising committee, which might have had some wiggle room as a soft money contribution. This was hard money and illegal from the outset.
Peter Paul's attorney fought for two years to have this and other of Peter's tapes released that were being held by a U.S. Attorney. Because it was withheld, the evidence was not available in the trial of David Rosen, in the FEC investigations, or in the Senate Ethics Committee that cleared her of wrongdoing.
We need your help to get this in the hands of journalists. Please make comments on the YouTube thread and make sure everyone on your email list sees it.
Didn't I see this story posted on a CBS web site?
If you saw this on a CBS site, I’d like to know about it.
bttt
BTTT
Congressman Billybob
excellent and infuriating....stay safe
“Hard money is under direct control of a candidate, while soft money is not & can not be.”
Thanks for the explanation. I’m not trying to be dense here but this story won’t grow legs unless someone can explain to the average voter how and why this was a crime.
I think the thing that may be causing the confusion is this: what makes the money from that particular gala event “soft” money?
Politicians have these kinds of events all the time, they have $2,000 a plate luncheons and all sorts of events to raise money. To people who don’t understand any of this fund-raising stuff it looks like this event included the same sort of legal fund-raising with Hollyweird types that goes on all the time.
“Apparently, everyone has just accepted that Katie is going to be flushed down the toilet, and nothing can save her.”
Maybe. I think it’s more a case of, Katie would rather die a low-ratings death than report real news that would hurt Hitlary.
That was actually the first question that popped in my mind. The second was, is there a reason she can’t still be prosecuted? Double jeopardy?
Hey, John. Would you mind giving your take on whether Kankles can be charged? Will there be any legal ramifications? It just kills me that she might get away with it. Sort of like Nifong getting away with it, if that had happened.
The only damage that this situation will do is political -- over and above whatever money damages Peter Paul can collect from the case itself, but that won't dent the Clintons' bankroll. The optimistic side is that Clinton (her) is up against a negative view by nearly half of the population, per the recent polls.
The events in this instance may be enough to push her over the tipping point that she cannot now, and cannot ever, be elected President. It is as if it takes not just one Chappaquiddick, but a series of them, to bury finally and for all time the ambitions of the Clintons, just like the original Chappaquiddick buried the presidential ambitions of Ted Kennedy.
Let's hope that is the outcome.
Congressman Billybob
Thanks. Too bad, really. But perhaps good enough. I can see Hillary winning the national election as Dick Morris would argue. I just can’t see BO or Silky Pony winning.
But, I say that not yet knowing who the GOPers will nominate. Who knows how bad they’ll screw up.
John, in January of 2006, she had her treasurer file a fourth false report after being fined by the FEC and told to report correctly. No statute of limitations there. I know the candidate doesn’t do the report, but she certainly knew the facts at that point and let him file a false one.
Whether this can be proved is another matter, but in her lying declaration, she claims to know nothing of her husband’s plan to work for Stan Lee Media. Of course, Chelsea is going to commit perjury because it is genetic, but Chelsea said before witnesses at Streisand’s the next day that they stayed up late playing Scrabble and discussing how exciting it was for daddy to be going to work for the creator of Spider Man.
Very nice..... Has she seen this?
John / Billybob
The seed money in this case wasn't soft money, because Hillary's campaign coordinated with those who spent over a million on her behalf & the proceeds went into a fund under her direct control.
Politicians have these kinds of events all the time, they have $2,000 a plate luncheons and all sorts of events to raise money.
Right, they do & the proceeds are hard money if they go into a fund under control of the candidate. The $2000 a pop aren't the problem, the seed monies are. If the funding of the event, the money spent up front comes out of the candidate's fund or if the one who spent the seed money is reimbursed, there's no problem.
The money spent to put Hillary's gala together was a hard money contribution, well over the $2000 limit. Not only was it a hard money expenditure, but Hillary & her campaign were caught working with those doing it on her behalf (proof is in the video).
To people who don’t understand any of this fund-raising stuff it looks like this event included the same sort of legal fund-raising with Hollyweird types that goes on all the time.
The stuff that goes on behind the scenes is what makes the difference between a legal versus illegal contribution.
I completely agree with your assessment that she will never be convicted of anything. Dave Schippers has said that it would be professional suicide for any prosecutor who tried it. We only need a small percentage of the population to see the truth so that she becomes so radioactive she can’t be nominated.
bump
In 2000, the max hard money contribution was $2,000, which would have been $1000 each for primary and general election. The tickets to the concert were $1,000. That was not just a number pulled from the air.
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.