Posted on 10/17/2007 7:26:37 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Criminal means either a person convicted of a crime or who has committed a crime, regardless of any conviction. Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of any crime. She never will be, regardless of what she does. It would be career-suicide for any prosecutor to bring charges against her.
That said, Hillary meets the second definition of criminal.
There is a video tape of Hillary Clinton, made 17 July, 2000, as she called the offices of Peter Paul while Stan Lee (creator of Spiderman) and others were there. The call was about the Hollywood Gala created by Hillary's White House Assistant, Kelly Craighead, for which Bill Clinton's associate, Jim Levin, solicited Paul’s support. The Gala took place 12 August. At first glance, the video merely shows Hillary thanking those who raised money. But it is much more than that.
This video was seized by Federal Marshals in Spring, 2001 and held by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York until 11 April, 2007, when it was finally released to Mr. Paul.
Here are two links on the Internet for the tape of that call: http://www.hillcap.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbg72tK_ks
This tape shows three different FEC crimes. First: the Gala was reported as an “independent” event. If “coordinated” with the candidate, all contributions over $2,000 were illegal. A performance by Cher, or any of dozens of other artists who appeared “without fee” at the Gala were each worth more than $2,000.
Ms. Clinton cannot claim she was unaware of these arrangements, since on the tape she discusses her call to “close the deal with Cher” after Paul’s talent coordinator made the initial arrangements.
The second crime concerns her alleged “lack of knowledge” of the false reporting of the expenses for this Gala, in the criminal trial in Los Angeles of David Rosen, Finance Director of her Senate Campaign, for false reporting. His attorneys, along with the prosecutor, told the trial judge that “Hillary Clinton had no knowledge of the finances for this Gala.”
It is malpractice for any attorney to represent to any judge what a witness might say, without first talking with that witness. Hillary either lied to the lawyers so they would lie to the judge, or she told the truth to them, and they lied to the judge. Either way, the lies worked. The judge responded that “Hillary Clinton is not in the loop in any direct way, and the jury will be so advised.”
It was not until years after Rosen’s trial was over, that this video tape was obtained from the US Attorney’s office in New York. There is also the wrinkle that this case was tried before a judge appointed by Bill Clinton. Why the prosecutor did not ask the judge to recuse himself, is beyond me
The third crime concerns the Federal Election Commission, The Complaint that NY Senate 2000, her first campaign organization, had falsified the records concerning the Gala, was filed 16 July, 2001. Finally, on October 16, 2005, the FEC found that the Gala had falsely represented the financials by $721,000.
This was a “settlement” with the Campaign, requiring it to file a new report about the missing money, and pay a fine of just $35,000, a low fine for the largest falsehood in FEC history. Again, Clinton lawyers represented that Hillary “had no knowledge of the errors.”
Under FEC law, the candidates are personally responsible for all documents and records filed with the FEC. It doesn’t matter if they are filed by lawyers, treasurers, or anyone else. The phone call shows that Ms. Clinton was aware of details of the funding of the Gala. So, the lies presented to the FEC were her fault One final detail about the FEC: The amended report which she filed, was itself dishonest about the source of the missing money.
There is now a 13-minute video which pulls all this information together: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl
The final version of this, “Hillary Uncensored,” runs 60 minutes, and will be available both through the Internet and on DVD, after a preview at Dartmouth College on 27 October.
Lastly, even as you read this, Hillary is conducting another possible illegality. When I worked for John Anderson, independent candidate for President in 1980, the FEC instructed that Campaign to return donations to certain contributors. We asked whether we could encourage donors to “re-donate” those funds back to the Campaign in an acceptable way.
The FEC said no, because that would violate FEC laws and regulations. If the laws and regulations are the same now as they were then, Hillary’s presidential campaign is violating the law right now. According to press accounts, the letters returning tainted money from the Norman Hsu affair ask the recipients to re-donate the money to the Campaign.
Ms. Clinton will hear about this column, and will ask her legal minions about filing suit. Various publishers have been carrying my weekly opinion columns for up to twelve years. In accord with Supreme Court decisions, the carriers of opinion pieces generally cannot be sued by someone who takes umbrage at such opinions.
As for me, I welcome Ms. Clinton suing for libel. Please, pretty please with a cherry on top, sue me. I would happily to come to court with attorneys armed with Supreme Court law and baskets of evidence on whether you can be properly described as a criminal.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
BTTT
m BTTT
Ping!
BTTT!
It’s a pleasure to just know of you, sir.
Well done!
ping
Right on Billybob!!!
Huh? Provide some more detail on that aspect. I'm under the impression that the performers charged a fee. Even if they chose to to it for free, how is that a financial contribution to the campaign?
Well said. They are watching her public relations tour, with the media cooing and sighing.
Keep your doors and windows locked Billy.
Thanls Calpernia.
Pinging.
Yea, suicide Klintoon style.
I wonder if your ‘various publishers’ will print this one, though. Most of the MSM and even county/city/small town papers seem to be reticent to post anything negative about either one of the Clintons. Don’t know if it’s money, power or fear, but no one wants to do it.
Please keep us informed, FRiend.
Thanks, Congressman! Good job! ....................... FRegards
It does not matter because there are numerous dead who will vote for her.
bttt
bttt
John / Billybob
“If Sen. Hillary Clinton is to chart her own course independent of her husband, why did she choose Sandy Berger to give her advice on foreign policy? This suggests reunion time for cronies. In 2003, Mr. Berger took several highly classified documents about the Clinton-era Millennium terror plot from the National Archives while ‘aiding’ the September 11 commission. Mr. Berger successfully negotiated a plea bargain and received only two years probation, along with a security-clearance suspension and a $50,000 fine. Were he anything less than a member of the permanent Clinton establishment, he would be in sitting in a prison cell, with few prospects. But no sooner was his probation time over-it ended last month-than Mrs. Clinton put him back in the game, presumably with a new pair of pants big enough to accommodate purloined documents. This issue is a larger subset of the looming ‘first laddy’ question. In a Hillary Clinton administration, first husband Bill Clinton would inevitably loom large. The Berger news suggests that his old friends and cronies would, too... This could of course be merely a symbolic appointment, with no future for [Berger] at the National Security Council or anywhere else in government. The episode reeks nonetheless... Mrs. Clinton is of course free to fill her foreign-policy ranks with such people, and she is free to open herself to charges of cronyism. She is free to dismiss the fact that Sandy Berger violated the government’s most stringent security rules. But she can’t escape responsibility for it. If the Clintons spend whatever capital they have to help old friends find work, they tell us loud and clear what we’re dealing with.”-The Washington Times
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.