Is Hillary an Un-indicted Felon? Videotape Screams, 'YES'
Politics Ben Barrack
July 7, 2007
Is there something more than arrogance that would cause someone to commit a serious crime and not only expect to get away with it but to successfully insist upon it; something more pragmatically important? You’d be talking impunity if not immunity and if you listen to Peter Franklin Paul, that’s exactly how Hillary Rodham Clinton has conducted herself. Before you label him a partisan hack or someone with an axe to grind, consider the signs. Oh, and take a look at the videotape of Hillary committing “several felonies under Federal election law for which she will almost certainly never be prosecuted”, according to long time U.S. Supreme Court Attorney, John Armor. However, being convicted in the court of public opinion could be another story if...
As has been reported on hillcap.org (as of this writing, the five minute “smoking gun” appears on the home page) and World Net Daily, Paul has filed a civil suit against the Clintons for what amounts to interfering with his biggest investor. Did I mention his site is riddled with documents, photos, and videos? What’s coming out of the Clinton camp? It would appear nothing but silence and denials. In return for Paul’s people putting on a Hollywood fundraiser for both Hillary and Bill, Bill would work for Paul’s company for one year after he left office (there’s a photo of Bill Clinton meeting with Peter Paul outside Air Force One on 9/22/00 in which Paul asserts Clinton reiterated his intention to honor the agreement). The suit arose when Paul found himself holding a $2million receipt and an empty promise. In fact, legal documents on Paul’s site implicate the Clintons in felonious activity for not returning the money that funded the event. If true, the logical path from implication to accountability has taken a delusional detour.
So where are the felonies? Among the “several” referred to by Armor are FEC rules stipulating that neither a candidate nor a candidate’s aid can work directly with a donor with respect to the coordination of those donations once they exceed $2000. Once donations exceed $25,000 in a calendar year, a felony has been committed by the candidate, punishable by up to five years in prison. How much did the fundraiser cost? Oh yeah, $2million (per the charges in the civil suit). If my calculations are right, $2million is 7900% more than $25,000.
The fundraiser took place on August 12, 2000, right in the thick of Hillary’s initial Senate campaign. She has denied having any discussions with Peter Paul’s group with respect to the coordination of the event. On my April 29th show, I analyzed the initial 30 seconds of the videotape that was released in the run-up to the civil trial. If reports of her denying involvement are true, those 30 seconds alone exposed her as a liar. If nothing else, Paul deserves some points in the credibility battle. If it were tennis, the ball was in her court. As of this writing, the return shot never came as her attorney, David Kendall has declined comment. In fact, as of this writing five additional minutes of videotape has already been released, implicating Hillary even more in the commission of two felonies. If this were tennis, we could have watched ace after ace fired at the Clintons if you include the documents, photos, and videos with the 30 second tape making it match point. We’re still awaiting a return shot on the five additional minutes. David Kendall has declined comment. Is it Game, Set, Match...with an Ace? I won’t detail the damning evidence on the tape here. I’ll let you do that on your own (it is on the Hillcap website) because I want to take a look at another allegation made by Paul (remember, he’s got credit in the credibility battle – we should let him use it).
The question remains, if this was such blatant fraud committed by the Clintons, why wasn’t either one of them indicted? Paul brought it to the attention of John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in 2001. It fell on deaf ears according to Paul. Why? Again, before you dismiss what Paul alleges, I refer you to the credibility battle. He maintains (are you ready for this) that in a deal brokered between Republican and Democrat leadership after the closest presidential election in history in 2000, Democrats would agree not to contest the election in return for George Bush giving the Clintons immunity. Seem far-fetched? Didn’t Bill Clinton make an immunity deal the day before Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001 in which he would not have to face any indictments for false statements about the Lewinski scandal? Does anyone truly believe that was the only thing he had to worry about? Why NOT try to have an immunity blanket thrown over both he and Hillary that would cover everything? The election results (or lack thereof) DID seem to provide a little leverage there. One must admit that the prospect of not having to face drawn out litigation over election results would have been appealing to Bush 43. In his mind, he could have been protecting the integrity of the office in two ways. America could get on with its business and a former president could remain untarnished (blue dress notwithstanding). Clinton was issuing pardons in his final hours with near reckless abandon and at breakneck speed. Almost as if he had no fear of accountability. In his February 18, 2001 column that appeared in the New York Times, Bill Clinton wrote, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president]..., and it is granted without limit". That sounds like someone who fears no accountability. Among those pardoned were his former Whitewater business partner, newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, and his brother Roger, on a drug conviction. Why else would the highest ranking government officials turn a blind eye to videotape evidence that points to fraud being committed by someone who is today the leading presidential candidate for the Democrat party and current Senator when it was made available to them? Anyone remember the name, Marc Rich? Just this week, Hillary was quoted as saying this about the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence by George Bush, "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
FAULT! We’re still waiting for you to return serve on the videotape, Mrs. Clinton.
How about the media on this story? Are you kidding? Aside from most outlets perpetually wallowing in the innocuous, my experiences over the last ten days have made me wonder if the right to Freedom of the Press has been surrendered by its supposed champions. They’ve been silent. In fact, when I spoke with Peter Paul, he was beside himself at the absence of coverage. If his allegations are true (remember the credibility battle), we have the biggest story on our hands since 9/11. Why wouldn’t the media want to touch it? Not having access to national media outlets, I decided to try a different tactic.
I tried to reach out locally.
On my June 24th broadcast, I challenged local television station and NBC affiliate KCEN-TV to cover the story. No response. On June 25th, I contacted my congressman’s office and directed them to the seven minute segment I did in which I analyzed portions of the videotape. I was patched through to the Director, who heard my story. My call was returned later that day by another office, saying they couldn’t do anything about it because they were a “government office”. They referred me to the RNC in Washington, D.C. As of this writing, I have not heard back from the RNC.
I then thought I should reach out to the local print and broadcast media in Austin, TX; a bigger market than Temple but still accessible. Between June 25th and June 28th, I spoke personally with representatives from the Austin American Statesman, 590 KLBJ Radio, KEYE-TV (CBS), KXAN-TV (NBC), KTBC-TV (FOX), and KVUE-TV (ABC).
In the case of the Austin Statesman, I contacted the author of a news article about a Texas state senator accused of getting a bartender fired for not serving him because he appeared intoxicated. I figured if she was able to write about that, surely she would write about this. She listened to me and told me she would call me back. She did. She told me that her editor said he wasn’t going to touch it but that I could check with another editor at the paper. After pleading with her that not covering a story like this goes against every precept inherent in journalism, she had no defense (and apparently no power). I spoke with the editor on June 28th and told him everything I told my congressman’s office. I was told that because it’s a national story, he would have to get approval from the Washington Bureau. A Centralized news source telling local newspapers what to print! Ah, the magical wire. Don’t investigate anything that doesn’t get told to you by someone who tells you what you can and can’t print. Is that it?
All of the other media outlets gave me the same response (except one). All but KEYE-TV listened and said they would look into it. None of them has responded to me as of this writing. Why? Is indifference, apathy, or something else at work? The response I received from the news desk at KEYE-TV convinced me it could very well be something else.
On the evening of June 26th, I spoke to a woman at the news desk of KEYE-TV (CBS affiliate). I told her that I had videotape evidence of a front-running presidential candidate committing two felonies and asked her if she would consider that news. She said, “Yes”. I then began to tell her what I had. At some point after hearing that the candidate I was referring to was Hillary Clinton, she stopped me and said, “Sir, you need to contact the FBI”. Understandably, my voice rose slightly. I told her that she was violating the principles of news journalism. She told me that she would not talk to me because I was raising my voice.
If Peter Paul’s allegation that a deal exists between the Bushes and the Clintons is correct, is it not then possible that the conditions of that deal also extend to national media outlets? Either a Bush or a Clinton has been in the first or second chair of the White House since 1980 (27 years). Surely, they would have figured that one out by now. Why else would an editor at the Austin American Statesman say he’d have to run a national story through the Washington Bureau? Why would the news desk at a CBS affiliate direct a caller with a huge tip to the FBI? If Paul is correct, it’s game, set, and match. The problem is the people not returning the shots are still eyeing the trophy while the people in the stands are more interested in cell phones and concessions.
If you listen to Paul (and he can be very convincing), worse than the felonies being committed by a leading presidential candidate is what the handling of those felonies has exposed. “A consequence of the felonies has been a series of obstructions of justice that have blocked each branch of government and their ability to enforce the laws”, said Paul.
“We the People” and a government “of, for, and by the people” could take on extreme significance if only we paid attention. We better start because we may be the only thing left to protect the Constitution.
therant.us |
