Posted on 05/03/2008 8:58:48 AM PDT by doug from upland
NOTE: thanks to caller Shannon for finally raising the issue. Unfortunately, Rush gave an answer that is gibberish. I'll give my comments after you read the transcript. First, however, let's go back in time to last year. A FReeper posted an old story of David Rosen being indicted, but the headline did not reflect that it was from the FR archives. Drudge posted it on his website and Rush picked it up, reading the story as if it were news. Drudge quickly dropped it from his site (I'll go find the screen shot), and Rush has not talked about it since.
RUSH: Here is Shannon in Fort Worth, Texas. I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. I want to get straight to the point. I want to know, in your opinion, who has the best integrity of the Democratic candidates. Would it be Hillary or Obama, and I want to take you back a little bit to the 2000 Peter Paul scandal of Mrs. Clinton. I'm surprised she's still in politics. I'm surprised that she's not in jail after that, and in your opinion, I want you to explain why you think that she was able to get out of that scot-free, because it did not appear as if she was held accountable for any of that?
RUSH: 'Cause she didn't know about it.
CALLER: Well --
RUSH: She didn't know about it, Shannon. Here's the story on this Peter Paul business, as best as I understand it. They had this big-time fundraiser out there in Los Angeles somewhere, and he was one of the organizers at a fundraiser, and a lot of the money that went into staging the thing, they contracted out, just counted that as a campaign contribution. They took much more money out of the event than it raised and converted it to campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton. But she didn't know anything about it. This woman doesn't know anything. She's ready to lead from day one, but she doesn't know anything. She doesn't know anything that happens in her own house. She doesn't know anything that happens in her own bedroom. She doesn't know anything that happens in her own husband's administration. She doesn't know anything, her mind is Jell-O. And since nobody had any proof that she knew about it, that's why. What was the other question, who has the most integrity between Obama and Hillary?
CALLER: Yeah, who do you view as being more honest and has more integrity?
RUSH: Jeez. (laughing) This is a case of two negatives. Which is the least dishonest, is the most appropriate question.
CALLER: I think that's a more accurate question, but in your opinion -- because I think Mrs. Clinton is beatable, and I think it's because every time that she makes a statement, she's proven, you know, with the sniper fire and all this stuff, she's proven that she can't be honest, she can't tell the truth.
RUSH: Of course. But look, Obama can't, either. Nobody wants to talk about this Obama stuff. But this guy hasn't told the truth since Jeremiah Wright hit the scene. He hasn't told the truth about anything. By the way, Michelle (My Belle) Obama says we're sick and tired of hearing about Reverend Wright. You know what I'm sick and tired of hearing? I'm sick and tired of hearing about alternative energy and I'm sick and tired of hearing about health care and I'm sick and tired of hearing about education. Here's another thing, too, folks. The idea that one of these two is more beatable than the other, that may be true, we don't really know now because there's too much that can happen between now and the actual election. But they're both beatable. In a sane political environment, neither of these two would stand a ghost's chance. If somebody is willing to make the case -- and some of us are -- I think you'll see that come to fruition. That's why I'm not worried here about the outcome of Operation Chaos.
END TRANSCRIPT
Yes, Rush, they did have a big time fundraiser out there in Los Angeles. It was called the HOLLYWOOD GALA SALUTE TO PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. It was on Aug. 12, 2000 at the Brentwood estate of radio magnate Ken Roberts, just before the Dem convention in Los Angeles.
Peter was much more than one of the organizers. He paid for it all. He paid about $1.6 million, $1.2 million of which was documented and introduced into evidence by FBI agent David Smith at the David Rosen criminal trial. Peter spent all of that money from his personal funds -- none came from Stan Lee or Stan Lee Media.
The rest of what Rush is saying is just gibberish he pulled from his hat.
"...and a lot of the money that went into staging the thing, they contracted out, just counted that as a campaign contribution." They contracted out money? They counted that as a campaign contribution? That doesn't mean anything.
"They took much more money out of the event than it raised and converted it to campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton." They did no such thing. How do you take much more money out of an event that it raised and convert it to campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton? That's gibberish. The event raised over a million dollars for her. Peter spent more on the event than it raised. But that didn't matter to him. His objective was hiring a soon to be former president as a rainmaker that would bring in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into the company.
"But she didn't know anything about it. This woman doesn't know anything." We understand that he was then being facetious about this woman not knowing anything. That has been the Clinton argument all along regarding the Gala. But it is a lie. She knew everything.
Here is what really happened, Rush. Agents for the Clintons directly solicited Peter to pay for an event that cost over a million dollars. It was hard money, not soft money. Why? Because those claiming it was for a joint fundraising committee, the way direct donations are laundered, violated the law. The two principal characters who came up with the idea for the event, Kelly Craighead and Jim Levin, directly solicited Peter. On a July 11, 2000 conference call, which included Peter, Jim Levin, Kelly Craighead, Howard Wolfson, and Aaron Tonken. They discussed the event costing over one million dollars. Levin was not part of any joint fundraising committee. He was the Clinton agent and business advisor who vetted the company to evaluate the proposal. Craighead was a White House employee. Their solicitation of Peter to contribute over a million dollars (in-kind or in cash, it is the same) was illegal to the extent it exceeded $2,000.
During official investigations and the criminal trial of Rosen, a damaging 5-minute tape was withheld by the office of the US Attorney, Eastern District New York. On that tape Hillary is acknowledging that Craighead kept her completely briefed. She would continue to keep her briefed. Craighead would convey to them what Hillary needed. She would check in from time to time.
Hillary admitted soliciting the performance of Cher. Although factcheck.org's Viveca Novak contended that Hillary was just being friendly in that 5-minute tape, Viveca is either woefully ignorant of the facts or deliberately lying. Hillary was not just thanking people and didn't just have a friendly conversation with Cher. Had Novak asked before she did her hit piece on HILLARY! UNCENSORED (actually on the 13-minute segment, since she admitted not watching the entire film), we would have been glad to lay out the facts for her.
Of the eight international headliners, two had a special requirement. Tonken, with the assistance of Ilana Stewart, solicited Cher's performance. Cher had never done a political fundraiser before this. She required a direct phone call from Hillary. Yes, Tonken and Stewart set it up, but it took Hillary's call to get the final commitment and seal the deal. That was a direct solicitation of her performance, not something she volunteered. That was a hard money contribution, and to the extent it exceeded $2,000 was illegal.
Diana Ross had the same requirement as Cher. She had to hear from Hillary. Hillary called her and sealed the deal.
If Rush were up to speed he could have provided Shannon and his other listeners with further enlightenment. There is important evidence to prove what Hillary did know. Although Hillary trotted out her official spokesman to lie to the WASHPOST and all of the voters on her behalf that the campaign would take no money from Peter Paul, Wolfson made an interesting admission. He admitted that the event cost a million dollars. But he added that it was in-kind an not a check. Um, Howard, it doesn't matter. For a campaign contribution, in-kind is the same as a check.
On July 11, 2001, David Kendall accepted service for Hillary in Peter's civil suit. Included in the service was $1.6 million of documentation for what he had spent. He included the same info a week earler when treasurer Andrew Grossman was served. Nevertheless, Hillary allowed Grossman to file a third false FEC report on July 30, 2001, claiming only $401,000.
Rush should have told his listeners that in Dec. 2005, the FEC accepted a conciliation agreement from Grossman, which is essentially the same as a nolo contrende plea. The campaign had filed three false reports, hidden over $720,000, and was told to file a fourth amended report. That report, filed in Jan. 2006, was another fraud. Among the many factually inaccurate claims was that Stan Lee gave $225,000. Hillary knows that is a lie. In Lee's filmed deposition, which has been sent to her and Kendall and others, Lee swears that he gave no money. Hillary also lists payment to two of Peter's holding companys as if he were a vendor. She still has never named her largest contributor, the largest contributor ever to a federal campaign.
EIB listeners also need to know the nature of the civil suit. Paul v Clinton is about a business fraud and tortious interference. The claim is that the Clinton agent, Jim Levin, who had access to proprietary business relationships and had signed a non-circ agreement, interfered with SLM's major business partner, Tendo Oto. Levin, in fact, recorded his own agreement with the Sec. of State in Illinois just six days after Hillary was elected. Oto had infused $5 million into SLM in August for their Asian joint venture, with the promise of a similar amount in November for the US partnership. Oto wanted to be part of the $17 million employment agreement with Bill Clinton. In November 2000, as all the dotcoms were crashing, SLM ran out of cash, ceased trading, and went bankrupt. Had Oto supplied the $5 million as promised, Peter is prepared to prove that such funds would have carried the company forward until Clinton came aboard as promised. Peter pegs his stock loss at about $30 million.
Paul v Clinton has compelling evidence, including several hours of home video with Hillary. No one has ever had that before. Evidence in the civil case is finally going to reveal to all the voters the obstruction of justice that Hillary directed and campaign finance fraud she perpetrated. Key witnesses will be called who were not called during the Rosen trial, in the FEC investigation, or in the Senate Ethics Committee sham look at the case. Amazingly, Kelly Craighead, the trusted advisor who knew everything and reported it all to Hillary, has never been called to testify. Although Judge Aurelio Munoz, with such request from Kendall, decreed that Hillary cannot be deposed until after the election. Everyone else can, including defendant Bill, daughter Chelsea, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe, Howard Wolfson, Kelly Craighead, Larry King, Cher, Streisand, etc.
I was in the courtroom on April 7, 2006 when David Kendall turned in to the court this work of fiction laughinging referred to as her sworn declaration. She can remember nothing. That is not surprising. But she does make a very interesting admission, one which she probably did not realize see made as she was penning the fiction. Referring to producer Gary Smith: "I remember he was asked to produce a fundraiser for my Senate campaign." Yes, Hillary actually told the truth. It was for her Senate campaign, NOT FOR A JOINT FUNDRAISER as her spinners have contended. Peter was paying money for a business relationship with the Clintons. He was not investing in a joint fundraising campaign.
Chelsea's testimony should be interesting. Hillary doesn't know or remember anything. She knows nothing of the plan for Peter to fund her campaign. She knows nothing of her husband planning to go to work for SLM. Well, at a Streisand brunch the next day, Chelsea told witnesses how the family stayed up all night playing Scrabble and discussing how exciting it was that dad was going to work for the man who created Spider Man. Yes, folks, Hillary has set up her own daughter for perjury. Let's see what she says under oath. We are going to discover if perjury is genetic.
Of course!
“I did not know anything about it” is one of Ms Clinton’s most famous and often used quotes.
Sometimes Rush forgets to “put a sarcasm tag” on his answers. He expects the majority of his audience to be able to discern the intended sarcasm.
Doug,
I appreciate what you have done for all these months keeping us informed on this issue. I just sincerely hope all your hard work hits the bullseye and she doesn’t slip away untouched again. We have seen them get away with so much over the years and the frustration level is building. Most of us can’t stand the thought of that lying sack of dung getting away again.
Send it: elrushbo@eibnet.com
BTTT!
i was listening to the show, rush was being sarcastic.
keep up the great work.
With such poor memory, couldn't it be said that she has diminished mental capacity and therefore, for medical reasons not qualified to be a candidate for such a high office.
doug,
Didn’t you post this yesterday, and didn’t several people point out that Rush was being sarcastic?
Rush was being sarcastic ... he was parroting a typical Hillary response to the scandal.
I acknowledged that he was being facetious about Hillary not knowing. The point of this post is that he apparently knows very little about the case. He was not being facetious when he tried to explain the case to her. He wasn’t even close to most of the facts. Shannon, call me and I’ll give you the answer.
Messing with Rush is messing with family. His answer to that call was purely sarcasm. As bad as things can be at times, I shudder to think what and where we would be without him. That being said, keep up the good work!
Remember, with Rush, the ass-kick can be in the sarcasm.
Peter spoke with his producer yesterday. Kit Carson told him Rush was being facetious. When I sent Peter the transcript, he couldn’t believe Rush’s description of the event and the facts. Rush has not paid any attention to this. If he had, people might actually know that the door to discovery is now open.
Excuse me, everyone. I understand Rush was sarcastic about Hillary claiming to not know anything.
The rest of the answer was nonsensical. He has the facts wrong. I wish he would get them right.
Rush was not being sarcastic with the facts that he tried to explain to Shannon. He was just factually incorrect.
This will get nowhere unless the press thinks it is worth reporting. It will certainly get nowhere if the big voices on our side either don’t report it or get it wrong.
That was my impression too.
These are the kinds of things that Obama should be seeing to it get out there, either by an ad, or by surrogates.
Yes, he should. His wife has the DVD.
I suspect he jumbled the facts because it wouldn't go well with his operation chaos right now.
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.