FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu

Ten years ago, L. Jean Lewis, an investigator with the government's Resolution Trust Corporation, was able to piece together a complicated Arkansas bank fraud conspiracy from a treasure trove documents she unearthed in an out-of-the-way Kansas City warehouse.

The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign.

"The documents were seized in a May 30 raid of a California storage facility containing documents of Peter Paul, the entrepreneur who funded Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign with over $2 million dollars in direct, in-kind contributions which were never reported by Hillary Clinton or her Senate campaign, as required by law," revealed the public interest law firm Judicial Watch in a press release late last week.

The raid is important for two reasons. First, it may yield yet another treasure trove of evidence against the Clintons.

But the second reason may be even more significant. The Justice Department's continuing investigative interest in the Clintons comes despite news last week that the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, James Comey, decided to shut down a key part of the Pardongate probe.

Peter Paul and his Judicial Watch lawyers have been trying to persuade the Justice Department for the better part of two years to take his allegations seriously. But instead they seemed more intent on prosecuting him for stock fraud. That is, until now.

Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman suggested the raid may represent something of a turnabout in thinking among Attorney General John Ashcroft and his colleagues.

"Mr. Paul could have turned the documents about the Clintons over to the FBI months ago under a cooperation agreement," Klayman noted. "Instead, he waits in a Brazilian dungeon for the Ashcroft Justice Department to get serious about this corruption case. So it is a welcome sign that the Justice Department is turning up the heat on this new crime scandal concerning the Clintons."

The FBI raid may also be a sign that the reported no prosecution deal for the Clintons, demanded by Democrat leaders as the price for President Bush getting some of his legislative agenda implemented, is beginning to unravel - since Democrats seem to have kept little if any of their part of the bargain. (See: Bush Insider Claims Clinton Deal Torpedoed Pardongate)

"The search warrant authorizing the FBI raid of the storage facility specifically references the Clintons and the New York Senate campaign," says Judicial Watch.

"The search warrant authorizes the seizure of: Records relating to New York Senate 2000, the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton, the Federal Election Commission, David Rosen and Aaron Tonken... (David Rosen was the Director of Finance for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and Aaron Tonken is a Democrat fundraiser who raised money for the Clintons. Both men have knowledge of Mr. Paul's contributions.)"

Meanwhile, Peter Paul awaits a Justice Department offer of legal leniency in exchange for his further cooperation in the Clinton case.

If he returns to the U.S. anytime soon, it could be a sign that for Hillary Clinton, it's deja vu all over again.

I was thinking more of Monica Lewinsky, who seemed to me to have been a 50/50 player in her little drama with Bill C.

Now, the Paula Jones situation is much more sordid. I have no support for that. Certainly grounds for a civil suit, and as I remember in fact one was pursued and settled. A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency. If Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit in the State of Arkansas against Bill Clinton, I'd support her actions and wish her luck, although I'd imagine that was handled in the civil suit settlement.

The connection to the Whitewater investigation, then, is simply that it and the investigation of these other matters were done by the same lawyers. The acts themselves had nothing to do with Whitewater, but to read the original statement in the news story, and with no other understanding of the issues, you'd think that the Clintons were charged with financial malfeasance in Whitewater, and they weren't.

Now, the Paula Jones situation is much more sordid. I have no support for that. Certainly grounds for a civil suit, and as I remember in fact one was pursued and settled. A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency.

Clinton's major offense was, like Nixon's, the coverup more so than the crime. Watergate was about the upcoming election and not about Nixon's Presidency per se.

Clinton's perjury as President should have removed him from office, either through resignation, ala Nixon, or conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is just no way we can tolerate lying to a grand jury, or even asserting Fifth Amendment rights by a public official.

"A sexual harassment suit would be something for the State of Arkansas' legal machinery, though, not impeachment, as (please correct me if I'm wrong) that had nothing to do with any acts of Bill's Presidency."

Do the terms obstruction of justice and subbornation of perjury mean anything to you? He used the powers of his office and members of his administration to attempt to deny a woman (Paula Jones) her rightful day in court. He had people lie both under oath and in public to cover up his actions - regarding both Paula Jones and Monica.

Laws were broken while he was in office. It matters not whether they had anything to do with his duties as President, it matters that he broke the law. Period.

"There is just no way we can tolerate lying to a grand jury, or even asserting Fifth Amendment rights by a public official. "

"There are frightening implications for the future of our country if we do not impeach the President of the United States …If we fail to impeach, we have condoned and left unpunished a course of conduct totally inconsistent with reasonable expectations of the American people.

The people of the United States are entitled to assume that their President is telling the truth. The pattern of misrepresentation and half-truths that emerges from our investigation reveals a presidential policy cynically based on the premise that the truth itself is negotiable.

It is a sad chapter in American history, but I cannot condone what I have heard; I cannot excuse it, and I cannot and will not stand for it."

Congressman Caldwell Butler (Republican) speaking about Nixon in 1974

"Laws were broken while he was in office. It matters not whether they had anything to do with his duties as President, it matters that he broke the law. Period."

Well, in fact it does matter. That's why the article of the Constitution applicable in this matter quotes English common law by using the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", as opposed to "any crimes or misdemeanors". It then is up to the House, and then the Senate, to make the judgement as to what constitutes a "high crime".

I need to look up the origin of that phrase, to see if there are any examples in previous usage as to what's a "high crime" and what isn't.

yOU SAID..............................But I guess we all make compromises in our marriages.

Nooooooooo....we Un-Wellsley's do NOT make compromises in our marriages. Do you think this is how the rest of the USA is?? that women take in crude, rude, cheating husbands to get married??/ Only in Trailer Parks or WELLSLEY I guess, cause that's not what happens in middle America!!!

Take a trip t the heartland to see some REAL people that are HAPPY in their marriages!!

Why don't you hie yourself to DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON INTRODUCTION AND TABLE OF CONTENTS and find out what a crowd of criminals your pals the Clintons were?

Freeper Alamo-Girl has complied the exhaustive list @ http://www.alamo-girl.com

And try not to pick fights with FR archivist types. I've seen the apologia oh so many times. It makes me yawn. When you get done reviewing the record, maybe we'll talk about it. ;-)

"Why don't you hie yourself to DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON INTRODUCTION AND TABLE OF CONTENTS and find out what a crowd of criminals your pals the Clintons were?"

Seems the folks on the left-wing boards aren't the only ones who enjoy jumping to conclusions based on things I don't say. I don't seem to recall saying anything about how I feel about Clinton's policies. I didn't say that I thought it was moral or immoral for him to engage in adultery with someone half his age. I did say that Paula Jones probably was well justified in her suit against him, and that his loss of his law license was suitable.

On what basis do you presume that the Clintons are my pals? Because I don't see how one draws a causative connection between Bill's sexual offenses and the financial offenses at Whitewater? Bill did what he did, but one really has nothing to do with the other. Neither he nor his wife have been charged in anything. And a majority of the Senate failed to agree that he'd done anything worthy of impeachment.

It seems you've made the mistake of confusing facts with feelings. The statements above are simply facts, and have no bearing on whether or not I condone anything he's done. Most Freepers have no love for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Fair enough. But instead of limiting themselves to facts I see people seize on anything, true or fancied, and try to hang it on them. It's ridiculous. There's plenty of things that he's done, and perhaps her, without making up stuff, or using misleading statements. And I categorize "The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history." as the latter.

Yes, I think most people make compromises in their marriages. For example, I spend a lot of time in outdoor recreation. My wife would prefer to go to Vegas, but she realizes that I need this kind of thing, so we've made some compromises in how I spend my free time. Seems to me that most couples do this. Apparently, however, you don't agree.

I wouldn't condone a compromise of the kind that Bill and Hilary seem to have made. But I don't consider myself in a position to judge; I am content to let them live their lives, and I'll live mine.

Anyway, congratulations on your perfect marriage. It must be nice to marry someone whose personality, desires, and abiilities so perfectly match yours that no compromises are necessary. Perhaps you should write a book.

The fact that the Clinton's were not convicted for crimes relating to Whitewater in no way esatblishes their innocence. As I recall, all their buddies got convicted. They were right in the middle of everything but others took the fall. Hillary's role was particularly well documented (once those "lost" billing records showed up).

Plenty of people stole more in the S&L fiasco but that doesn't make them innocent either.

Your defense of the Clinton's is as justifyable as those that cheered when Gotti walked, or when OJ got his pass.

Screw you. (Freeper since when???)

The ties between the sexual offenses and the Whitewater case and all of the other scandals can be summed up in one word - perjury. It is NOT all about sex, it is about blatently lying to the American people on National TV and committing perjury in a court of law time and time again. As I pointed out, Bill Clinton was fined a couple of times (Judge Susan Webber Wright formally fined Clinton over $90,000 for Contempt of Court as well as the previously mentioned fine) and lost his license as a result. He basically made a last minute plea agreement with Ray, which may not be an actual criminal conviction, but it was definitely an admission of guilt and punishment for that guilt.

There were many reasons why he was not convicted:

The FBI has destroyed evidence he had against Bill Clinton

Robert Fiske's report on Whitewater was "deep sixed" by a court The blackmail of Janet Reno

A D.C. Chief Federal Judge "fixed" cases, bypassing established rules

Smears on accusers and Clinton's sexual scorched-earth plan

Many more reasons and info on other Clinton scandals can be found at this link.

Wake up son...it is not merely about blow jobs.

I claim allegiance to no political party, nor accept identification with one. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and the occasional independent (that's with a small "i", not the Greens or Libertarians). I have yet to find any political party with whom I agree on all their important platform points. Of course, there are many office holders in both parties that seem to disagree with some of their party's planks. Certainly there are pro-choice Republicans and anti-affirmative action Democrats. But all in all, I take it one election at a time, looking at the candidates more than the party they're in.

What I was talking about was that people make compromises in their marriages, and that the Clintons have to all appearances made this particular one. Can't say I approve of it, and God knows we haven't in my marriage. You're the one that picked it up and ran with it, trying to make it look as if that's all I was talking about. I then tried to then better illustrate what I was talking about, so as to correct your (unfounded) assumptions.

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.