Anti-Clinton Group Joins With Former Clinton Donor

NY Times ^ | May 3, 2005 | RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

[Pharmboy]

WASHINGTON, May 2 - The man whose claims are behind the recent criminal indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former fund-raising director is collaborating with a conservative group in California on a project to publicize potentially damaging information about the Clintons.

The man, Peter Paul, has enlisted the support of the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group, to start the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project, a venture meant to focus public attention on a 2000 fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton that is at the center of the federal government's criminal case.

Once dismissed as yet another anti-Clinton gadfly, Mr. Paul has suddenly become a major source of problems for the Clintons and their political associates.

A well-connected figure with a criminal history that dates back to the 1970's, Mr. Paul says he organized the star-studded fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000 to win Mr. Clinton's support on a business venture he was undertaking. But when his relationship with the Clintons soured after the event, he turned on them.

He has accused the Clinton campaign in a civil suit of falsely reporting that the August 2000 gala cost far less than the nearly $2 million he claims to have spent to organize the event. This January, federal authorities produced an indictment charging that David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, had underreported the cost of the affair.

Responding to Mr. Paul's latest endeavor, David E. Kendall, a lawyer for the Clintons, called Mr. Paul's character into question. "Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions, currently in federal custody," he said. "Most of his civil suit has already been dismissed and the remainder has no merit."

The anti-Clinton project that is being undertaken by Mr. Paul and his conservative allies in California will make use of documents and other materials that Mr. Paul says stem from his role producing the 2000 event, including bank statements, canceled checks and film of him with the Clintons.

Gary Kreep, the executive director for the justice foundation, said it had established a Web site, www.hillcap.org, that would provide updated information concerning the criminal case against Mr. Rosen, as well as updated information about a civil suit that Mr. Paul has filed against the Clintons. (The site was still under construction on Monday.) He said the foundation planned to use its existing direct-mail operation to both raise money and disseminate information about those cases.

Mr. Kreep also said the foundation planned to cover the legal costs from the civil suit, in which Mr. Paul claims he gave close to $2 million in services and donations to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign based on promises that Mr. Clinton would join an Internet venture of his. Mr. Paul claims these promises were never fulfilled.

"We want to get to the truth of all this and make sure the public knows about it," Mr. Kreep said.

In a separate interview, Mr. Paul went even further, predicting that the case could thwart any political aspirations that Mrs. Clinton has beyond New York. "This fund-raiser will ultimately be viewed as her Chappaquiddick and cost her the presidency," he said. "I've already got her campaign finance director indicted."

The timing of all this is troublesome for Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, who is up for re-election next year. While Mrs. Clinton is apparently not a subject of the investigation, questions about the 2000 fund-raiser have given her political enemies plenty of ammunition.

In fact, Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that repeatedly sued the Clintons during their White House years, initially championed Mr. Paul's case. But a few months ago, Judicial Watch abruptly severed ties with Mr. Paul, who, in turn, accused the group of merely using his case to raise millions of dollars from people who dislike the former president and first lady.

The attention being given to Mr. Paul's charges underscore the growing concerns within the Clinton camp that Mrs. Clinton will be a primary target of national Republicans in 2006, despite her overwhelming popularity among voters in New York.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers have good reason to harbor such concerns. Republicans in New York and elsewhere around the country are warning their supporters that Mrs. Clinton will be in a position to run for the presidency in 2008 if she is not defeated in New York next year.

But that said, Republicans are having trouble recruiting top-tier candidates like Rudolph W. Giuliani or George E Pataki to run against her. Instead, the list of possible challengers being mentioned include Edward F. Cox, a lawyer who is the son-in-law of Richard M. Nixon, and Dr. Antonia C. Novello, New York's state health commissioner, who was previously United States surgeon general.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Do either of you have access to the picture of David Kendall sitting on his briefcase during the impeachment hearings?

[Amalie]

"It's totally in the hands of the Republicans. How they handle it. Which makes me shudder with fear, believe me, knowing that the "professional campaign managers" in the Republican Party have blown more opportunities at bringing clarity to issues than the Palestinians have blown opportunities for real peace."

Unfortunate but true. Hillary can win if she sets the agenda - that broad brush of 'fear','religous extremism', and other words that set the tone AND if the Republicans put up a non-contestant like Dole again. No, I am hoping we get someone capable of articulating conservative TRUTH; window dressing won't cut it. Along with defense 'sense', gun rights, immigration reform, tax policy, and abortion law will be the primary factors in making the ideas work.

Defeating her in '06 is a great idea (though I agree that the GOP candidates don't look very strong at the moment), but it needs to be a political destruction that can't rise from the dead for a run in '08, not a mere defeat.

There is one other factor not yet considered, and that is the internal problems the Democrats will face as they argue with each other on why they lost again in '06. DCC Chariman Howard Dean may be the best secret weapon against the Clintons that we have....

[doug from upland]

If Peter Paul was such a bad guy, how is it that the Clintons and the Secret Service apparently never checked out Peter Paul? How is it that he was able to sit with them at dinner and at the concert? Why did Hillary return his $2,000 donation to her campaign but not reimburse him for the $2 million?

Hillary is a tyrant who must always be in control of everything. Does anyone believe she did not order the now indicted David Rosen to phony up reports? Does anyone think he did that on his own?

[doug from upland]

Not too much of a slanted headline, huh? Anti-Clinton group. Hernandez is the designated reporter from the NY TIMES to cover this adventure.

Guess what, NY TIMES? You no longer have a monopoly on what is news and what people should believe. Those of us in pajamas now have our say. Go ask Dan Rather.

[doug from upland]

HERE IS A STORY WITHOUT THE CLINTON BUTT-KISSING

[doug from upland]

The man whose claims are behind the recent criminal indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former fund-raising director
=====================================================================

Actually, the man behind the criminal indictment would typically be a federal prosecutor. And the man who committed the felonies would also have something to do with it. But I guess Hernandez knows best.

[doug from upland]

Responding to Mr. Paul's latest endeavor, David E. Kendall, a lawyer for the Clintons, called Mr. Paul's character into question. "Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions, currently in federal custody," he said. "Most of his civil suit has already been dismissed and the remainder has no merit."
===========================================================

As usual, this is total B.S. from Kendall. Without FreeRepublic, he would get away with it. The case proceeds. What was thrown out was thrown out because the statute of limitations had tolled. The Clintons have tried to stop this at the trial level, the appellate level, and the California Supreme Court level. Lost, lost, lost. The case proceeds. He insults the California Supreme Court who determined that the case has merit. I wish they would hold him in contempt or gag him.

[Interesting Times]

The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project goes live tonight at 9pm. See this thread for details.

[MeekOneGOP]

The Biased Liberal media is EAGER to report that Hitlery is
"Moving to the center."

Ha! Yeah, right. When pigs fly.

Check out her "Move to the center" here, per the ACU. She
went from "10" in 2003 to a GOOSE EGG (0) in 2004, on a
scale of 100 = perfect conservative.

Moving to the center? He**, she's farther left in 2004 than
EVER!

Click here or on the pic for the article.

---

Hillary's Rating per the ACU

Senator Hillary Clinton (D)
New York
Democrat, Years of Service: 4

ACU Ratings for Senator Clinton:
Year 2004	0
Year 2003	10
Lifetime	9

[laredo44]

That cackle in response to questions she doesn't want to answer

Since when does Hillary permit questions she doesn't want to answer to be asked?

[Pharmboy]

I heard that hideous cackle in response to a few of Tim Russert's questions on MTP. And there was one other interview she gave where she used it a few times...the interviewer escapes me for now. It might have been an old Katie Couric/Today Show interview.

[Grateful One]

Your prediction that Hillary will not debate is right on!

She will NEVER expose herself in any forum that will force her to answer questions that she has no clue as to what the answers might be.

If she is up against Condi, the contrast would be striking.