Hilary's "Crime on Tape" Protected by California Appellate Court
My site has gone DOWN, I notice.
To mirror Peter Paul's site, I post this here, hoping it will come back.
Hillary’s “Crime On Tape” Protected By CA Appellate Court
In a ruling handed down today on whether Hillary Clinton should be given first amendment protection for civil frauds she committed to fund her US Senate campaign, a three judge California appellate panel, including two appointees by Gov Grey Davis who had worked in the same law firm together representing the ACLU, ruled that it would not allow newly released video evidence capturing Hillary in election law violations because:
“Because it would be inappropriate for us to decide on appeal whether Senator Clinton or Clinton for Senate violated federal law in connection with the solicitation of Paul’s in-kind contributions, Paul’s motion to admit a videotaped recording of a July 17, 2000 telephone call among Paul, Stan Lee and Senator Clinton in which they discuss the Hollywood Tribute and his request for judicial notice related to this issue are denied.”
The court also denied consideration (judicial notice) of court testimony by admitted Clinton agent to Paul, Jim Levin, who testified that he was delegated by the Clintons to initiate the illegal campaign solicitation from him on their behalf.
Paul v Clinton will now proceed against the remaining defendants, former President Bill Clinton, Grammys producer gary Smith and strip club owner James Levin, who exhausted their appeals to the California Supreme Court in 2004 and their trial date for March, 2007 will now be reset for 2008 with Hillary Clinton guaranteed by the judge to be required to testify under oath as a material witness.
Tuesday ~ October 10, 2007 by Peter Paul Posted in Hillary Clinton, scooter libby, race, "Norman Hsu", hsu| No Comments
Hillary! Uncensored- The Documentary- Rough Cut Trailer #1 Video Watched on Google Last 3 Days
hrcHillary UncensoredIn an extraordinary development in the war of attrition being waged through Paul v Clinton et al to expose Hillary Clinton’s contempt for the Rule of Law and the Constitution, a rough cut of the trailer for Hillary! Uncensored- The Documentary has become the number one most watched video on Google for the last 3 days straight! More than 50,000 views a day and a total of 362,000 views in the last 30 days!
The documentary has been invited to debut at the metropolitan Club- the oldest Republican Club in New York, on October 30.
New Media Journal.USHillary and The Mother of All Cover Ups
October 13, 2007
After six years of sleepwalking through the biggest maze of corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power ever witnessed by a jaded government “insider,” the clouds parted and a thunderous realization struck this observer’s consciousness. What has been glaring on the face of the public record – mirrored in a kaleidoscope of witnesses, investigations, and evidence – suddenly revealed itself in a “Where is Waldo” epiphany.
The Justice Department, in tandem with a federal judge appointed by the Clintons, as well as defense counsel directed by Clinton alter egos, used the Clinti-Vellian indictment and prosecution of Hillary’s low-level campaign functionary – with the high falutin’ title of “National Finance Director” – to “immunize” the Clintons from legal and public accountability for egregious violations of the law that were orchestrated in plain view of Democrat political leaders, an A-list of Hollywood luminaries, and the American media.
In short, the prosecutors at the Department of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity got away with indicting Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen, in a sealed indictment in 2003, for concealing from Hillary’s Senate campaign the $1.1 million cost of Hillary’s largest fundraiser (Event 39)? The government charged Rosen with sole criminal culpability for causing Hillary’s Committee Treasurer to file three false FEC reports between October, 2000 and July, 2001, that hid the origin and expense of more than $700,000 of the cost of Event 39 donated by Peter Paul.
Yet all interested political observers of the 2000 campaign were apprised that Hillary and her Senate Campaign Committee knew the very same information the DOJ charged Rosen with hiding from them, and they knew it long before they filed the first “criminal” false FEC report Rosen was indicted for. The world was apprised of Hillary and her committee’s knowledge of David Rosen’s “secret” information regarding the true $1.1 million, plus cost of Event 39, when Hillary’s personal and campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson confirmed to Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove on August 17, 2000, that:
“As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, “it was an in-kind contribution…and not a check,” Wolfson said.
No one, including donor Peter Paul, ever publicly challenged the clearly ersatz indictment based on that “quote” because of the success of the Clinton spin-meisters in diverting attention from the real issues surrounding the FEC frauds directed by Hillary, with Bill as her agent.
Somehow the Clintons managed to execute an elaborate charade to hide Hillary and Bill’s illegalities in inducing and coercing Peter Paul to donate more than $1.2 million for Hillary’s Senate campaign, and then misreported those contributions in false FEC and IRS reports. It involved the apparent complicity of Los Angeles federal Judge A. Howard Matz, who President Clinton appointed in 1998, and the Chief of the DOJ Office of Public Integrity, Noel Hillman, who directed his lead prosecutor, Peter Zeidenberg, to act in concert with Judge Matz to produce the greatest legal rope-a-dope on record.
Was the Rosen trial fixed by the Clintons to hide in plain view, and thereby avoid, their own accountability for serial felony violations of federal laws that generated Hillary’s largest contributions of money and endorsements to ensure her victory over Rick Lazio in 2000, and continue the obstruction through false reports in 2006 that assured Hillary’s re-election?
The possibility of collusion directed by Hillary and/or her agents to cover up her illegal role in the matter comes strictly from the public record of the facts surrounding the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of David Rosen. Judge Matz – before any evidence was presented or any opening remarks were made – blatantly ignored the Judicial Canons of Ethics by making prejudicial statements related to a case at bar, and tainting the jury with false statements he knew or should have known were false. The fact that Judge Matz’ unethical conduct was not immediately challenged by the prosecutor raises the distinct possibility that more than malfeasance or incompetent lawyering may have been afoot.
Judge Matz began the trial by stating unequivocally to the media: “This isn’t a trial about Senator Clinton.” “Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or principal.” “She’s not in the loop in any direct way, and that’s something the jury will be told.” These statements were factually false in that Senator Clinton had a tremendous stake in the trial – as both a party and a principal – because of the ramifications of exposing her personal illegal actions and conspiring not only with Rosen but with President Clinton to illegally solicit and then hide Peter Paul’s contributions – the largest of her campaign.
The video evidence that the US Attorney from NY withheld from the FEC, FBI, and Inspector General investigations clearly shows that Hillary was not only personally “in the loop” – directly and through her White House employee Kelly Craighead – but, contrary to the Judge’s assertions, the video clearly shows Hillary admitting to acting as a talent coordinator for the fundraiser and illegally soliciting excessive “in kind” contributions of the professional performing services of Cher, which Hillary then used to generate more than $1 million in hard money donations to her campaign through “ticket sales” based in large part on Cher’s performance.
While the government prosecutors ensured that Rosen alone took the heat for Hillary, they also hid the truth about Peter Paul’s donations and expenditures and thereby caused false reports by Hillary’s campaign to the FEC. Judge Matz ensured Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury because of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. Immediately after telling the Jury that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly and to the jury that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that the government’s case was based largely, according to The New York Times, on Paul’s allegations and that Rosen’s defense was that Paul conned him by hiding the true information about his $1.1 million plus contributions from Rosen.
“The federal government’s criminal case is largely built around the claims of Peter Paul…who turned on the Clintons after producing a lavish Hollywood fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000… the defense is expected to argue that Mr. Rosen had no way of knowing that the figures he reported were wrong because he had relied on information provided by Mr. Paul and others who arranged the event [”Political Drama Abounds in Trial Involving Mrs. Clinton’s Hollywood Fund-Raiser by Raymond Hernandez, New York Times, May 9, 2005.]
Instead of objecting to the Judge’s prejudicial actions on the spot – and calling for Judge Matz to recuse himself or declare a mistrial – the prosecutor proceeded to tell the jury that the Judge was correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton had no role in the case (even though the Justice Department was withholding videotaped evidence to the contrary) and that Hillary was a victim herself, implying that she was victimized not only by the defendant by also by Paul.
The most glaring problem with the case, brought exclusively against Rosen, was to divert attention from the role of Hillary and her agents in illegally soliciting and coordinating more than $1.2 million in contributions from Peter Paul, and then lying about it to the voters and the FEC to win two Senate elections. Hillary admitted in a taped conversation with Paul that regular briefings were given to her by Kelly Craighead, the designated White House staff liaison with Paul. But most compelling about the government’s contrived and illegal indictment of Rosen for allegedly hiding from Hillary’s campaign the true donation/expenditure of $1.2 million from Paul was the campaign’s own public statements after the Gala.
Not only did the DOJ prosecutors know from the Washington Post that Hillary and her campaign were officially on record as knowing that Event 39 cost more than three times what they reported to the FEC and IRS from October, 2000, through January, 2006, but they knew from evidence presented and subpoenaed from the donor, Peter Paul himself, and those who worked for him, that many agents of Hillary were fully aware that the reports made to the FEC hid most of Paul’s $1.2 million plus expenditures.
The career DOJ prosecutor who made opening and closing remarks to the Rosen Jury, Peter Zeidenberg, also performed that function in the false statement trial of Lewis Scooter Libby. Zeidenberg’s statements to the Rosen jury were carefully crafted to assure Rosen’s acquittal for causing the false reports made by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to the FEC about serious violations of the federal election law. Interestingly, Mr Zeidenberg’s statements to the Libby jury were carefully crafted to assure that Libby was convicted of making false statements to the FBI in connection with conduct with the media that was adjudged to be perfectly legal. Zeidenberg never objected to the Clinton-appointed judge unethically destroying all credibility of his principal witness, Peter Paul, to the jury, thereby assuring he could never call Paul to the stand, but he never called for a mistrial because of the judge’s prejudicial statements that effectively proved Rosen’s defense of being conned by Paul was reasonable.
Then, when Mr. Zeidenberg began to explain the case to the jury starting with how the events unfolded, his statements to the jury on the origin of Event 39 conflicted with the testimony of his own witnesses. By misstating that Rosen and Paul alone concocted the fundraiser after Paul went to Rosen to volunteer his funding and production contributions, the prosecutor again immunized Hillary’s liability for a felony violation of the federal election law based on the testimony of Clinton agent Jim Levin and others who recalled that Event 39 was the brainchild of Hillary’s agents Craighead and Levin, in Chicago on June 23, 2000, after a Hillary attended fundraiser. Then Hillary’s agents, Kelly Craigehad and Jim Levine, solicited Paul to produce and pay for the Gala. The prosecutor’s actions all seemed surgical in their efforts to excise Hillary and Bill Clinton’s illegalities from being revealed while laying the blame on a functionary who could never be convicted.
With the recent release in April, 2007, by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY, of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 – a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury – investigations into Hillary’s largest fundraising event have taken on new life. Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY, played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.
It’s all in the public record. All the public needs to do is read it. And weep that Hillary Clinton’s power to subvert our constitutional processes has become so great that she can preempt every investigative branch of our government to avoid being held accountable.
Saturday ~ October 10, 2007 by Peter Paul Posted in Hillary Clinton| No Comments
October 17, 2007
Hilary's "Crime on Tape" Protected by California Appellate Court