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 -
Wow! If only we had an honest media.
I pray for your safety, and God bless you for doing what is right. God help us if this woman is allowed to be called out President.
What good would informing "tv-morons" going to do? Are they suddenly going to morph into reasonable well informed conservative activists if they see this?
Most Americans have no interest in following these sorts of things. This does not make them "tv-morons", it just makes them average. Taking a negative attitude towards them is never helpful.
Such folks are convinced by action, not by the justification of the action. They will presume guilt if and when a person is found guilty. They will presume innocence until then. They will not bother to pay attention long enough to determine guilt. Now you and I might not relate, but that's the nature of most Americans. Lets accept it instead of getting mad about it, because we can't change it by doing so. Rather it will take a long patient time.
our form of government depends upon informed citizens.
tv-morons are not informed.
a soviet immigrant once said in astonishment to me:
“your tv is controlled.”
And yet the media is “worried” about her “laugh”...
THAT is “big news” and MSM “investigative reporting” at its finest.
bttt
If a performer does not charge a fee for what would otherwise be a paid performance, that is considered a donation.
bttt
bttt
“Way to nail it, John. I don’t think Hillary is going to be very happy when she is ordered to appear for a deposition.”
But who is going to order Hillary to appear for a deposition? Is there a judge who is NOT a Clinton appointee who is involved in Paul’s case? Unless there is, I doubt anything will be done about Hillary’s crimes. I keep hoping she & Bill will be brought to justice though.
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.