Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peter Paul & Hillary: Will It Be A Case Of The Little Guy Taking The Fall?
Toogood Reports ^ | Febraury 4, 2003 | Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 02/04/2003 9:29:47 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen

Larry Klayman is one conservative who probably should employ a food taster. He bills his organization, Judicial Watch, as the only real law enforcement agency in the USA.

His fellow conservatives cheered as Klayman filed suit after suit challenging the actions of the Clinton Administration. The cheers turned to jeers when Klayman went after Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration over their policies of secrecy. Klayman also angered conservatives by going after the fundraising practices of some in the GOP leadership in the House. Klayman says he is not running a partisan organization and when he sees wrongdoing on the right, he fights it as vigorously as he fights wrongdoing on the left. The liberals also hate him with a passion because some of his suits have found favor with federal judges. Cases against the Clinton Administration are ongoing.

Klayman is now pushing for action against Bill and Hillary Clinton over a fundraiser which a Hollywood figure named Peter Paul put on for Hillary in her run for the U.S. Senate from New York. I have considerable interest in this case because I know Peter Paul. I met him through the children of Clifford Heinz, a former Director of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul subsequently was in touch with me on a number of occasions. He seemed to indicate he wanted to help conservatives, but later he got close to the Clintons.

Mrs. Clinton needed lots of money to run for the Senate in New York. She and the president turned to Paul to help with a major fundraiser. He ended up putting over $2 million into a "Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton" on August 12, 2000. The problem is that Hillary never reported this contribution to the Federal Election Commission.

That is a federal crime.

According to Klayman, this payment of $2 million was part of a $17 million offer to Bill Clinton to work with Peter Paul's companies after Clinton left office. Paul has disclosed this, revealing that Hillary Clinton lied to the media when she said she had taken no contributions from Paul and would not do so.

That would be significant because the only commandment left with the liberal media is "thou shalt not lie to the liberal media."

Klayman also contends that then-Democratic National Chairman Ed Rendell (who is now Governor of Pennsylvania) offered Paul, who is a convicted felon three times over, a presidential pardon in return for further contributions.

Klayman says that Peter Paul has proof that the Clintons "knowingly and illegally" permitted a foreign national to attend that Hollywood Tribute in exchange for a $27,000 contribution. Contributions from foreign nationals to political campaigns are illegal. Klayman says that foreign national later attended an important state dinner.

In fact, Paul insists that Clinton campaign finance director David Rosen virtually demanded that Paul make another campaign contribution to a pro-abortion group in Illinois for $55,000. That money made it into Hillary's campaign war chest as well. The charges against Paul, according to Klayman, "inherently implicate Hillary and Bill."

Peter Paul has also been indicted in a stock fraud case. There is evidence that the Clintons, instead of granting the expected pardon, got the Justice Department on his case, lest he talk about them. That almost worked, until Paul started talking about the campaign issues.

The problem is that, thus far, Attorney General John Ashcroft has not agreed to pursue the Clintons in this case. Once again the little guy gets put away while the big time operators get let off the hook.

The Washington Post has reported that the two major political parties have signed off on a deal under which neither will pursue public corruption cases against the other. I would be shocked if Ashcroft has signed off on such a deal, but the failure to pursue the Clintons while Pete Paul takes the fall is troubling.

Klayman asked leaders of the conservative movement to contact Ashcroft, asking him to move on this case. But in case he doesn't, Judicial Watch has filed lawsuits in California and Washington to force the issue.

The junior Senator from New York, the ex-President of the United States, the Governor of Pennsylvania. These are all very powerful political figures in this country. Since the Justice Department lawyers have interviewed Mr. Paul four times and have told him his allegations about the Clintons have "checked out," the question now is whether these important figures will be treated as anyone else would be under the law or whether they will be passed over just because of who they are. I guarantee that if you or I had run a crooked campaign, and we were found out, we would be hounded until we were in federal prison. If Mr. Paul's allegations are true (and I believe they are because he has so many witnesses and so much documentation including hand-written notes from then-President Clinton) then how can this corruption be ignored?

I know President Bush has instructed his cabinet not to look back but to look forward. There were scandals in almost every agency and Bush, who came into office under unusual circumstances that divided the nation, did not want to begin his administration with dozens of investigations. All well and good. But this level of corruption must be dealt with or else we will have ceased to be a nation of laws and become a nation of men.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2003 9:29:48 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1273.shtml

Great link to the case.
2 posted on 02/04/2003 9:41:25 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen

3 posted on 02/04/2003 9:43:42 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Thanks for the link and the letter...appreciate it.

4 posted on 02/04/2003 9:47:01 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The problem is that, thus far, Attorney General John Ashcroft has not agreed to pursue the Clintons in this case.

Ummmm...the author should do his homework...

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 [2002] 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.

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.

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu

But the last word on Mr. Paul is that higher-ups at Justice are starting to warm to the overwhelming evidence he and his lawyers at Judicial Watch have amassed. And like hero-whistleblower Chang, the Clinton accuser shows no indication he's ready to fall silent anytime soon.

Peter Paul: Hillary Clinton's Torricelli Problem


5 posted on 02/04/2003 9:51:33 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
BUMP!
6 posted on 02/04/2003 9:54:59 AM PST by F.J. Mitchell (truth is the life blood of productive discourse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Hitlery under indictment and, maybe, convicted of a felony???? A dream come true. Gives me the vapors just dreaming about it. Please let it happen.
7 posted on 02/04/2003 9:57:02 AM PST by JeeperFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The Washington Post has reported that the two major political parties have signed off on a deal under which neither will pursue public corruption cases against the other.

Signed off? I don't believe you will find this issue documented by either party, it was more of a "gentleman's agreement" that has now gone bad.

A Bush administration insider has privately leaked word that a deal was struck between Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush White House not to prosecute Bill and/or Hillary Clinton on an array of charges related to the Pardongate scandal, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly claimed Friday on his nationally syndicated "Radio Factor" show.

"A very highly placed source - and I mean this guy knows what's going on in the Bush administration - told me about a month ago that when President Bush took office he had meetings with all of the Democratic leadership ... one-on-one meetings in the Oval Office," O'Reilly said.

"The Democratic leadership made it quite clear to Mr. Bush that he would not get any cooperation - zero - on the part of the Democrats in the Senate and in the House if he pursued any kind of a criminal investigation against Bill Clinton."

O'Reilly said that according to his source, "Basically, they said look, if you embarrass us - by us we mean the Democratic Party - if you, Bush-Ashcroft, indict Clinton on bribery or go after Hillary or any of this - we're gonna shut you down. We're not gonna do anything. You're not going to get any [legislation] passed in four years."

The talk host's highly placed administration source said Democrat leaders then explained to Bush, "If you put this thing on the back track and just play the game the way we've always played it here in the Justice Department since Watergate, where the powerful protect each other - then we'll keep an open mind on your legislation."

Newsmax


8 posted on 02/04/2003 10:00:44 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
At this point I would not like to see the Clintons taken down. As satisfying as it would be to see them in prison, they are actually living lives useful to society now. They are redeeming themselves by strangling the Democratic Party.
9 posted on 02/04/2003 10:01:28 AM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Yep. Tough call, politically speaking. Ah h*ll, it's the Rule of Law. Throw the book at her....
10 posted on 02/04/2003 10:12:57 AM PST by eureka! (Memo to Rats-Keep shrieking and moving left. Thanks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
If I am ever sued I hope it is by Klayman.

Whats his record now, 0 - 1,389?

11 posted on 02/04/2003 10:19:07 AM PST by Phantom Lord (No Remorse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
My own view of the matter is that Bush decided not to pursue the clintons because the past was past, it was all over and done with, and it would be bad politics, making him look mean, vindictive, and partison. The media would have been delighted to make the case.

He also probably thought that he could work with the more reasonable Democrats, as he did so successfully in Texas.

There was no agreement--not even a handshake. Maybe there was an unspoken understanding. If so, it is definitely unravelling. Because the clintons are not going away; they still control the party and the DNC; Hillary is a powerful senator maneuvering to run for the presidency, and only about one Democrat out of fifty has played ball in any reasonable respect. Otherwise the Dems in the Senate have been playing scorched-earth politics as usual.

So, the situation isn't what it was when Bush came into office. What does he have to gain from protecting Hillary from prosecution for her numerous well-known crimes? He will no pursue a personal vendetta, as clinton would have. But OTOH he no longer has any reason to leash in his administration from pursuing the clintons in the normal course of their duties.
12 posted on 02/04/2003 10:23:45 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If I am ever sued I hope it is by Klayman. Whats his record now, 0 - 1,389?

Just gives me 1,389 reasons why I don't vote in this "Two-Party Cartel". Bubba & the cellulite-legged senator should be in prison & you know that also. If not you are as dumb as rocks or a democRATe.

13 posted on 02/04/2003 10:35:40 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"So, the situation isn't what it was when Bush came into office."

At the start, Bush wasn't in a very strong position. I believe Bush behaved honorably, showing reasons to support him. And avoiding the politics of being personally critical of his opponents.

Now, Bush has a position of strength. However he must stay far removed, personally and politidcally, from any legal charges against the Clintons.

His AG can and should respond, to new and powerful evidence, brought in from democrat sources. Even at that, I would expect the Bush administration would negotiate with honest democrats.

Since there are no honest democrats, let the prosecutions begin. If Klayman is the prime mover, it will likely fail. If it has legs of its own, it may succeed.
14 posted on 02/04/2003 10:48:25 AM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Still playing defense for Ashcroft/Bush and the rest who have demonstrated no interest in dealing with government corruption, I see.

Actions speak louder than words. This nearly year old "raid" is the best you can do, I guess.
15 posted on 02/04/2003 12:54:45 PM PST by RJCogburn (Yes, it is pretty bold talk......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
The only appropriate punishment for Hitlery would a Pay TV Special live from Chappaqua in which Her Sneerness would be forced to sexually submit to Al Sharpton. I don't care how much they charge, I'm in!
16 posted on 02/04/2003 1:07:41 PM PST by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
They are redeeming themselves by strangling the Democratic Party.

The idea of having Hillary Clinton in the senate armed forces committee is too high a price to pay for that.

17 posted on 02/04/2003 1:08:06 PM PST by martianagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
A better idea would be to ressurect a couple of the 50's game shows for prime time. Have Hillary tied to a post and an audience of right-wing nuts like you and me to ask questions and the CIA's latest version of a voice-stress lie detector sitting there and whenever she tells a lie, the duck comes down from the ceiling with a red hot branding iron....
18 posted on 02/04/2003 1:11:24 PM PST by martianagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Actually I expect to see some movement on this in the near future, as the Dems are not keeping their part of the agreement. As we all know, the wheels of Justice turn slowly and contrary to your assertions, this case is still very much in play according to Judicial Watch. Another case to watch is the Mark Jiminez case, which JW is also working on. I look for the same "offer of legal leniency in exchange for his further cooperation". You have to consider too that the DoJ has to be very careful how they proceed with this so that it does not look like merely a political power play.
19 posted on 02/04/2003 1:28:39 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
I watched the SOS on CSPAN and one of the things that I noticed and have not seen any discussion of was when Bush said "WE WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED". Funny thing, the camera was on the republicans as he said this and I noticed many of them looking in the direction of the wide butted SINator and they were wearing a sh*t eating grin. I thought that I was just seeing what I wanted to see. Now, I wonder.


I became interested in politics because I was so incensed at the Clintoon Crime Family. They disgust me. I pray everyday that this government has the courage to take down this corruption.

20 posted on 02/04/2003 1:50:21 PM PST by Diva Duck (Reading List: Sellout, Savage Nation, Slander, Breakdown, Black Mass, Final Days, Hell to Pay, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson