Hillary’s Perjury & Obstructions of Justice In Castle Grande Scandal Revealed in Prosecutor Dash Archives
Jerry Seper in the Washington Times published an exclusive peek into secret memos from Ken Starr’s “ethics” counsel, Sam Dash, which were sealed with all of the impeachment files. They have now been identified among Dash’s papers which were bequeathed to the Library of Congress in 2004 by Dash’s estate. Seper introduced these revealing documents, which describe the abundance of the evidence that Special Prosecutors assembled to indict the First Lady for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice: ”A decade before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton admitted fudging the truth during the presidential campaign, federal prosecutors quietly assembled hundreds of pages of evidence suggesting she concealed information and misled a federal grand jury about her work for a failing Arkansas savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater probe, according to once-secret documents that detail the internal debates over whether she should have faced criminal charges. Ordinarily, such files containing grand jury evidence and prosecutors’ deliberations are never made public. But the estate of Sam Dash, a lifelong Democrat who served as the ethics adviser to Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, donated his documents from the infamous 1990s investigation to the Library of Congress after his 2004 death, unwittingly injecting into the public domain much of the testimony and evidence gathered against Mrs. Clinton from former law partners, White House aides and other witnesses. The documents, reviewed by The Washington Times, identify numerous instances in which prosecutors questioned Mrs. Clinton’s honesty, an issue that continues to dog her on the campaign trail after she was forced to acknowledge earlier this year exaggerating a story about coming under sniper fire as first lady during a visit to Bosnia in 1996.” These documents evidence a pattern of conduct that was repeated in Hillary’s dealing with the “Galagate” scandal detailed in Paul v Clinton. Here again Hillary denied any knowledge of Peter Paul’s , or personal involvement with, the role and contributions Paul made to her campaign. Starting a few days after the August, 2000 $1.2 million Gala Paul underwrote continuing through today she has been “enabled” to deny her videotaped involvement in and accountability for the illegalities connected with her fundraising. What the Department of Justice described as a felony when her finance director did it, didnt apply to Hillary’s identical conduct notwithstanding videotapes capturing her in flagrante delecti of felony violations of the federal election law !. The evidence of her personal involvement in the illegal solicitation and coordination of Paul’s expenditures for her campaign, like the Rose Law Firm billing records, was hidden- this time by the US Atty in NY, from 2001 when it was subpoenaed until April, 2007 when it was wrested from the US Attorney’s files. Lack of this evidence enabled the FEC and Judge in the Rosen case to exonerate her for “lack of any evidence”. Most exasperating is that the DOJ Prosecutor who participated in convicting Lewis Libby, Dan Schwaber- told the jury in the Rosen case, May, 2005 that the crime being prosecuted against Rosen was “Denying the Public’s right to know Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s national campaign” (See Trial Transcript, PDF pages 52,55,75) Yet Hillary has denied the public that right by lying to the Washington Post in two articles from August, 2000 and then causing a 4th false FEC report to be filed on January 30, 2006, which not only omitted any reference to a $1.2 million contribution from Peter Paul- but it falsely reported that Paul’s 2 holding companies, Excelsior and Paraversal, were paid $839,000 for Event 39 and that Stan Lee personally gave $225,000 even though he testified under oath on video tape that he gave no money at all and had “traded” $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he contributed to Hillary’s campaign! So you have Hillary telling the Post in August, 2000 that Peter Paul gave no money at all for Event 39 (The Gala), and you have an admission by Hillary through Howard Wolfson that the event cost over “$1 million and was an “in kind” contribution”. In May, 2005 Rosen was tried for hiding the true $1.2 million cost of the Gala, causing Hillary’s campaign to falsely report in October, 2000, January 2001 and July, 2001, that Event 39 cost $377,000- $400,000. In October, 2005 Hillary’s Treasurer Grossman admits he “hid” more than $700,000 contributed to Event 39 in three false FEC reports and he is fined (not indicted like Rosen was). In January, 2006 Hillary and Grossman file a fourth FEC report that omits what the DOJ said was a fact the public deserved to know- that Peter Paul personally contributed $1.2 million- and it omits that Peter Paul gave $1 to her campaign- it omits that Event 39 was an in kind contribution costing more than $1.2 million. Hillary’s Castle Grande obstructions are repeated- this time on the public record, in plain sight, aided and abetted by the DOJ Office of Public Integrity- which created a Soviet style show trial of Hillary’s finance director for hiding the $1.2 million cost of a fundraiser that Hillary was quoted through Wolfson by the Washington Post as knowing cost “more than $1 million”; the Federal Judge in the Rosen trial who stated “Hillary had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gala and the Jury was so instructed”; and finally the FEC itself which enabled Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended report on Event 39 6 months after the Rosen trial which omitted any reference at all to Peter Paul.
In the first ever look at the legal memos prepared by Special Counsels Ken Starr and Robert Ray’s office detailing the evidence assembled of Hilary Clinton’s deceptions to Special prosecutor investigators and the grand juries she testified before relating to White Water, the Rose Law Firm frauds and bribing of Hillary’s former partner Hubbel, a pattern of deception and obfuscation in sworn testimony and declarations by Hillary R Clinton emerges that is identical to Hillary Clinton’s latest perjuries and obstructions in the Paul v Clinton case.
Thursday ~ May 05, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "hillary uncensored", Barack, DNC, Hillary, bill clinton, democrats, election, entertainment, hillary clinton, peter paul, politics, washington| 1 Comment
Rush Limbaugh And The New VRWC To Elect Hillary Clinton?
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have shown Friday that he is joining former Clinton arch-enemies Richard Mellon Scaife, Matt Drudge, News Max publisher Chris Ruddy, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity in either flat out supporting Hillary publicly, or providing a strategic media coverage of her and her campaign intended to help her more than hurt her chances to win against Obama and possibly regain the White House. All of these named conservatives have been presented with detailed information and evidence to educate them on the illegalities Hillary directed to win her Senate seat and avoid accountability- NONE of them have ever accurately reported the facts to the public. When Peter Paul was invited to present his allegations against Hillary on the Hannity and Colmes show in March, 2005, after Hillary’s finance director David Rosen was indicted on three counts of election fraud for hiding from the public the fact that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s Senate campaign (by supposedly causing Hillary’s campaign to file 3 false FEC reports, according to Dept of Justice prosecutors), he was not supported in any way by Sean Hannity while Alan Colmes screamed over Paul’s answers to his questions. Alan Colmes shouted repeatedly at Paul “Where is your evidence of Hillary’s personal role in the matter”. Paul’s documentary evidence was not accepted. Sean Hannity appeared befuddled and unable to grasp the basics of Paul’s claims and quickly changed the subject. Two years later, when Paul forced the US Attorney in NY to release a video Paul took of Hillary’s personal role in helping and coordinating with Paul the expenditures on her behalf, Paul presented the video of Hillary’s personal role in the matter that Colmes repeatedly screamed at Paul to produce- to Colmes and Hannity and asked them to allow him to finally refute Colmes on the Hannity show. Paul was ignored by the producers and Hannity, and never given the courtesy of a response. Since then, Hannity has refused since May, 2005 to make any comments on Paul’s landmark civil fraud suit against the Clintons as it prepares to go trial!. After Drudge, Scaife and Ruddy came out with varying efforts to support Hillary, now Rush Limbaugh seems to have joined the pack. On Friday afternoon (May 2) Rush responded to a caller’s direct inquiry about how Hillary escaped any accountability whatsoever in the Paul affair with a Hannity like befuddled, confusing and wholly inaccurate and inarticulate answer intended to skirt the issue and its ongoing significance in the civil courts. Rush knows that the Paul v Clinton civil fraud suit has now been cleared by the judge to proceed with discovery which will include sworn depositions from Bill, Chelsea, Hillary (after the election) Al Gore, Howard Wolfson, Ed Rendell, Larry King and many other notable personalities, yet he made no mention of that development in his response to the caller’s question! Rush and the rest of the conservative talk hosts have collectively boycotted and dissembled incredible developments in this case- to what end can only be speculated. When Hillary’s finance director was indicted and tried for hiding Paul’s $1.2 million plus contribution and Teddy Kennedy’s brother in law became a federal snitch who was wired by the FBI to set up that finance director in conversations that would incriminate Clinton- and then when that tape was withheld by the prosecutor over the Judge’s initial objection- the case continued with videotaped admissions by pop culture icon Stan Lee that he “traded” a $100,000 contribution check to Hillary’s campaign with Peter Paul, when the smoking gun tape of Hillary calling Paul to help him expend his $1.2 million on her behalf- when all of this has been intentionally ignored and mis-reported- some may call it a conspiracy! Here’s is the latest transcropt showing Rush joining Hannity in being incapable of understanding Hillary’s illegalities that are on the public record: RUSH: Here is Shannon in Fort Worth, Texas. I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network. CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. I want to get straight to the point. I want to know, in your opinion, who has the best integrity of the Democratic candidates. Would it be Hillary or Obama, and I want to take you back a little bit to the 2000 Peter Paul scandal of Mrs. Clinton. I’m surprised she’s still in politics. I’m surprised that she’s not in jail after that, and in your opinion, I want you to explain why you think that she was able to get out of that scot-free, because it did not appear as if she was held accountable for any of that? RUSH: ‘Cause she didn’t know about it. CALLER: Well – RUSH: She didn’t know about it, Shannon. Here’s the story on this Peter Paul business, as best as I understand it. They had this big-time fundraiser out there in Los Angeles somewhere, and he was one of the organizers at a fundraiser, and a lot of the money that went into staging the thing, they contracted out, just counted that as a campaign contribution. They took much more money out of the event than it raised and converted it to campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton. But she didn’t know anything about it. This woman doesn’t know anything. She’s ready to lead from day one, but she doesn’t know anything. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own house. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own bedroom. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own husband’s administration. She doesn’t know anything, her mind is Jell-O. And since nobody had any proof that she knew about it, that’s why. What was the other question, who has the most integrity between Obama and Hillary? CALLER: Yeah, who do you view as being more honest and has more integrity? RUSH: Jeez. (laughing) This is a case of two negatives. Which is the least dishonest, is the most appropriate question. CALLER: I think that’s a more accurate question, but in your opinion — because I think Mrs. Clinton is beatable, and I think it’s because every time that she makes a statement, she’s proven, you know, with the sniper fire and all this stuff, she’s proven that she can’t be honest, she can’t tell the truth. And there you have it folks! (Rush would say) Rush appears to have sold out to Don Imus’ Great Satan, and sold his audience out denying them the true facts that even the California Appellate Court judges appointed by Gray Davis had to admit- that Hillary may well have used illegalities to win her Senate seat and keep it but who is gonna stop her? Who will go against her and her malevolent political machine? Clearly not those who made names for themselves in the 90’s as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who have now become the Vast Right Wing Friends of Hillary!
Saturday ~ May 05, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "Norman Hsu", "don imus", "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Barack, DNC, Hillary, Rezko, bill clinton, cher, current affairs, democrats, election, judge munoz, obama, peter paul, politics, race, stan lee, tony rezko| 5 Comments
