( Hillary! Uncensored) more on peterfpaul.com!!

(HILLARY! UNCENSORED) Newsweek’s “Crooked Claims” In Defense of Hillary Clinton Illegalities
peter paul ^

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

BIGGEST

ELECTION

FRAUD

EVER

Posted on 01/22/2008 5:50:52 AM PST by doug from upland

DFU NOTE: If I have time on this trip, I hope to be able to confront Viveca Novak. She has refused to go on Ben Barrack's radio show, claiming she will only go on a venue that is "neutral." Gee, Viveca, your piece of tripe wasn't neutral. When I have time, we will be answering her hit piece. Perhaps we need to see that on factcheckingfactcheck.org.

======================================================================

Newsweek’s “Crooked Claims” In Defense of Hillary Clinton Illegalities

We must be making some progress in our effort to break the media blockade surrounding Paul v Clinton et al and its evidence of illegalities directed by Hillary Clinton with Bill’s help, that won Hillary a seat in the US Senate and allowed her to avoid accountability ever since.

Today, seven years after Robert Novak broke the story of Peter Paul’s claims against Hillary Clinton’s election fraud, Newsweek finally deigned to publish a story on the subject. , outsourced by Newsweek to Factcheck.org’s disgraced Time Magazine reporter Viveca Novack, pretended to debunk the recently released unedited 13 minute trailer of the 63 minute unfinished documentary Hillary! Uncensored and Peter Paul’s 7 year crusade to expose Hillary’s frauds to the American people.

This journalistic equivalent of a plugged up colostomy bag takes first prize for its pandering to Clinton apologists who believe that the Clinton Real-Politik trumps the Rule of Law, and any effort to challenge and expose clear evidence of Hillary’s blatant contempt for following the law is a right wing attack job.

The most telling omission that is emblematic of the numerous misrepresentations and material omissions presented by Ms Novack’s story, is its complete silence on Hillary Clinton’s statements to the Washington Post in August 2000, before her election, that she vowed not to take any money from Peter Paul and she declared he had not given any money at all to her largest fundraising event. Then, nine days later she had her finance director fax a new demand that Paul wire untraceable securities worth $100,000 to illegally benefit her campaign through a state committee.

The Department of Justice in May, 2005, told the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen, that in fact peter Paul was Hillary’s largest donor because he gave more than $1.2 million to pay all expenses for Hillary’s largest fundraiser, the same one Hillary assured voters through the Post that Paul had given no money at all towards!

The article’s mischaracterizations are clearly intended, like the Washington Post Sunday Magazine 8000 word Cover Story in October, 2005 and the New York Times 3000 word story in March, 2005, to insulate and sanitize the impact of Paul’s imminent discovery and trial date to be set in the Clinton civil fraud case pending in Los Angeles.