<< Former Impeachment Counsel Schippers on the Issue >>
In another video prepared by Paul, David Schippers, former chief council of the Clinton impeachment (and a lifelong Democrat), makes the point that, in successfully keeping HRC out of a criminal case involving the gala, "the prosecutor if you recall made the statement that Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case, she has no connection with it in any manner whatsoever, you will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any manner whatsoever [with the fundraiser]." In other words Hillary Clinton was let off the hook through a false statement by the prosecutor. In fact, if Paul's statement to the court is correct, the incriminating video "has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc" since 2000.
<< What's Next? >>
Paul's argument concerning the video will come before the California Court of
Appeals on Sept 7 and a decision is expected within ten days of the hearing.
+++
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INCRIMINATING VIDEO SURFACES IN HRC FUNDRAISING CASE
UNDERNEWS FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
AUGUST 26 2007 Edited by Sam Smith
LATEST HEADLINES & INDEX: http://prorev.com
[To understand the importance of the video we first need to give a bit of the back story - previously published here - since the corporate media has steadfastly kept this matter from the public]
<< The Back Story >>
[]
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - In August 2000 Hillary Clinton held a huge Hollywood fundraiser for her Senate campaign. It was very successful. The only problem was that, by a long shot, she didn't report all the money contributed: $800K by the US government's ultimate count in a settlement and $2 million according to the key contributor and convicted con Peter Paul. This is, in election law, the moral equivalent of not reporting a similar amount on your income tax. It is a form of fraud and you can go to jail for it. Hillary Clinton's defense is that she didn't know about it. That has so far worked in court but to some it has been what some lawyers call the ostrich defense: I had my head in the sand while everything was going on or, yes, I signed the letter but I never actually read it.
An initial reaction to the Clinton gala came from Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post on August 15 2000: "Is Hillary Clinton soft on crime? We certainly hope not, even though convicted felon Peter Paul--who served three years in prison two decades ago after pleading guilty to cocaine possession and trying to swindle $8.7 million out of the Cuban government-- helped organize Saturday's star-glutted $1 million fundraising gala for Clinton's Senate race at businessman Ken Roberts's Brentwood estate. . . [Paul] added that he only produced the gala and hasn't given or raised money for the first lady's New York campaign. 'And we will not be accepting any contributions from him,' Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson vowed.
Later, Paul would change his story, claiming that his involvement stemmed from his desire to hire ex-president Bill Clinton, a deal he claimed became contingent on his not only producing but funding the HRC gala, costing him $2 million in kind and in cash. The Clinton campaign would also have to change its story: by September, Paul's Stan Lee Media had contributed $100,000 to HRC's campaign despite Wolfson's protest. According to Salon, "Bill Clinton was reportedly promised an additional $15 million in Stan Lee stock to join the board. . . Paul also says then-DNC Chairman Ed Rendell said it would be 'nice' if Paul gave $150,000 to the DNC after Paul sought a presidential pardon for his two prior convictions."
The man with whom Clinton was allegedly going into business had a known criminal past. According to Worldnet Daily, "Paul has pleaded guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held stocks in his company, Stan Lee Media. . . Under the Carter administration, he was convicted for cocaine possession and an attempt to confiscate more than $8 million from Fidel Castro in a black market coffee transaction the Cuban dictator was using to defraud the Soviet Union."
The Washington Post reported that "In 1983, Paul violated parole by traveling to Canada under a false identity and ended up pleading guilty in federal court to making false statements to customs inspectors. Paul went to prison in California. When paroled, he stayed in California."
The Post also noted that, "In 1998, Paul co-founded Stan Lee Media, a Hollywood-based Internet animation studio. The company was named for Paul's business partner, Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk. Almost from the start, prosecutors alleged, Paul and a few co-conspirators manipulated the market for the stock of Stan Lee Media: They artificially inflated the stock to a peak value of $350 million, creating a false appearance of demand by making transactions through and between accounts that Paul controlled but maintained in the names of others. Paul and his co-conspirators misused the brokerage account to borrow more than $4 million from Merrill Lynch, money prosecutors say they used to buy real estate, travel and make political contributions. Stan Lee was never implicated in the scheme."
After the indictment and the collapse of his firm Paul filed suit arguing that Hillary Clinton had never properly reported his $2 million contribution to the campaign. The suit was thrown out because Paul had become a fugitive under arrest in Brazil. On his return, however the suit was refiled.
A Clinton fundraiser, David Rosen, was acquitted of three counts of election fraud but his superior, Andrew Grossman, admitted responsibility for three false FEC reports for which the campaign paid a fine of only $35,000.
A judge in Los Angeles dismissed Sen. Clinton as a defendant in Paul's civil lawsuit. . .
The story - and not just the characters behind it - is a remarkable one, making all the more incredible the failure of the establishment media to report it in more than a perfunctory manner.
<< The Video >>
HILLARY CLINTON TALKING WITH STAN MACK, PETER PAUL AND AARON TONKIN
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlN3LMvyWwo&eurl>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlN3LMvyWwo&eurl=
<< From Peter Paul's Court Brief >>
As described in detail in the accompanying declarations of Peter Paul and D. [attorney] Colette Wilson, the five-minute videoclip contained on the July 17 DVD just came into Paul's hands two months ago. Although Paul participated in and personally filmed the telephone conversation captured by this videoclip, Paul has not had possession of the original or any copy of the VHS tape containing it since December 2000. That VHS tape, along with 81 other original videotapes Paul filmed during and prior to 2000, has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc. After years of trying to obtain copies of these videotapes, Paul was finally able to get the necessary authorization on April 11, 2007. This motion is therefore the earliest Paul could have presented this evidence to any court. . .
The conversation in question took place the Monday following a large conference call on July 11, in which David Rosen, James Levin, [Aaron] Tonken, Paul, fundraising consultant Terri New, members of Gary Smith's production staff, and others, participating from Paul's office, strategized with members of HRC's campaign committee in New York (including HRC's campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson), as they worked out the details of the exact nature, size and anticipated cost of the Tribute. . . By the time HRC called Paul in his office on July 17, Paul had already entered into what he believed was a solid agreement with President Clinton that Paul would underwrite half the anticipated $1 million cost of the Tribute as part of President Clinton's compensation package for working as a "rainmaker" for Stan Lee Media, Inc. when the President left office in January 2001.
The July 17 DVD evinces seven key facts, all showing conclusively that HRC was directly and personally involved in soliciting Paul's contributions and coordinating his expenditures for the concert portion of the Tribute, which was that portion of the event designed to generate federal ("hard"-money) contributions for her campaign.
First, the July 17 DVD records a candidate (HRC) talking directly with a donor (Paul) on the subject of preparations being made for a large campaign fundraiser.
Second, HRC includes herself as among those who are working on organizing the Tribute.
Third, HRC admits to having intimate knowledge about what Paul and Tonken are doing for her, based on reports being made to her by Kelly Craighead, HRC's senior staff official.
Fourth, HRC implies that because Kelly, her highest staff member, has been and will continue to be involved with the organization of this event, she herself will continuously be keeping tabs on the preparations.
Fifth, HRC promises to make herself available to assist them.
Sixth, HRC admits that she "closed the sale" in calling and convincing Cher to perform at the event, after Tonken had apparently paved the way. Obtaining a commitment from a big name like Cher had a direct bearing on potential guests' willingness to pay $1,000 to attend HRC's private concert, especially given the short notice for such a major event.
Seventh, HRC effusively thanks all three -- Paul, Stan Lee and Tonken -- and encourages them to keep up their efforts. This constituted both an acceptance of Paul's contributions thus far and a solicitation for Paul's future expenditures.
<< Former Impeachment Counsel Schippers on the Issue >>
In another video prepared by Paul, David Schippers, former chief council of the Clinton impeachment (and a lifelong Democrat), makes the point that, in successfully keeping HRC out of a criminal case involving the gala, "the prosecutor if you recall made the statement that Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case, she has no connection with it in any manner whatsoever, you will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any manner whatsoever [with the fundraiser]." In other words Hillary Clinton was let off the hook through a false statement by the prosecutor. In fact, if Paul's statement to the court is correct, the incriminating video "has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc" since 2000.
<< What's Next? >>
Paul's argument concerning the video will come before the California Court of
Appeals on Sept 7 and a decision is expected within ten days of the hearing.
Labels: Election, Clinton, Fundraising,
--
Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.
View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Good Morning World
No comments:
Post a Comment