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| 6 Comments
Judge Munoz Saves Hillary’s Presidential Bid In LA Court Action
In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election! While Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Barabara Streisand, Cher, Stan Lee, Brad Pitt, Mike Wallace, Larry King et al may be called to testify and be deposed starting in May, Hillary alone has been protected from explaining her role in her husband’s fraud charges. In an astonishing ruling by the Judge, Hillary Clinton may NOT be deposed about her role in the illegal solicitation and cover up of the largest contribution made to her Senate campaign until after the presidential election. This is the same contribution Hillary denied knowing about or receiving when Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post asked her specifically about it and her relationship with the donor, Peter Paul, in August 2000. Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005, or hiding from her and her campaign. Its the same contribution the FEC fined her campaign for hiding from the voters in three false FEC reports by her treasurer between 2000-2006. (www.paulvclinton.com) Equally surprising as the ruling was the judge’s request to Hillary defense lawyer David Kendall to “say hello to his ( Judge Munoz”) friend Bill, also a partner in Kendall’s law firm” Had Senator Clinton be forced to testify under oath, as a material witness and beneficiary of the fraud that her husband is being sued for before the Democratic Convention, her remote chances for being nominated the party candidate would have been unquestionably destroyed. Hillary has never publicly commented on the case in which she was a defendant from 2003-2006. Nor has Hillary ever commented on the videotaped phone call she made to Peter Paul the day he began spending more than $1 million for her Senate campaign, the false statements she made through Howard Wolfson to the Washington Post denying working with Paul or receiving any contributions from him, the sworn Declaration she made under oath where she refused to deny any of Paul’s allegations, the role her White House aide Kelly Craighead played in coordinating Paul’s expenditures and befirending Paul’s Japanese business partner during a White House visit and many other unanswered questions of illegal conduct. The illegalities detailed in Paul’s civil complaint and FEC complaint caused Hillary’s finance director to be criminally indicted and tried in 2005 by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity (the same group that prosecuted Scooter Libby) for hiding the cost of a fundraiser paid for by Paul. Paul’s FEC allegations forced Hillary’s campaign to admit to the FEC in October, 2005, that it violated FEC reporting requirements by hiding more than $700,000 received from Paul that Hillary personally said she never received. Hillary’s sworn deposition is expected to reveal numerous illegalities directed by Hillary, with Bill’s help, to win and keep her Senate seat and avoid being accountable to the law. The judge’s sua sponte decision to delay Hillary’s deposition until after the presidential election denies the public’s right to know what a presidential candidate and a former president have done to undermine the Rule of Law and the Constitution by corrupting the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity and its very Chief, Noel Hillman, federal judge A Howard Matz appointed by Bill Clinton (who deceived the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director by telling the jury that Hillary was not involved in any way) and the FEC itself which aided and abetted Hillary filing a fourth false FEC report in January, 2006 that omitted any reference to the $1.2 million contribution the FBI and DOJ swore Paul made. The Department of Justice prosecutor in the May, 2005 criminal case stated that $1.2 million was personally contributed by Paul at the request of Bill Clinton as part of an employment deal for Clinton’s post White House rainmaking services and was confirmed by FBI Special Agent David Smith as explained by Dept of Justice Prosecutor Dan Schwaber (pages 55,57,72) during the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May 2005. In fact, Hillary’s sworn Declaration in response to Paul’s sworn allegations constituted a legal admission to Paul’s charges becauseHillary refused to deny any of the allegations! The cover-up of the original felony violations of the federal election law committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton (they solicited and coordinated Paul’s $1 million plus contribution as a quid pro quo for Clinton’s post White House employment) have resulted in a corruption of every branch of the government by the Clinton’s- all in plain view of the public and with the collusion of the media and the government. Watergate seems insignificant in the breadth of its public corruption in comparison with what has become the mother of all coverups orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.
The decision to shield Hillary Clinton from civil discovery for an additional seven months, thereby delaying a long postponed trial, was made by the judge on his own, without any request by Hillary or her lawyer to make the ruling. No discussion was permitted by Paul’s lawyer before the decision was made. Judge Munoz’ unilateral decision effectively saved the floundering campaign and hopes of Hillary Clinton to win her party’s Presidential nomination!
Hillary’s treasurer was later forced to admit filing the false FEC reports to hide more than $700,000 paid by Paul, and fined $35,000 (the only fine imposed on Hillary’s campaign) yet Hillary has never answered one question to the media or the courts about these charges!
Strangely, Hillary admitted to the Washington Post in August 2000 knowing that the fundraising event Paul produced and paid for in August, 2000 cost more than $1 million- yet Rosen was indicted on three counts of hiding this fact from Hillary’s campaign causing 3 false FEC reports to be filed!
Sunday ~ April 04, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "don imus", "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Barack, Chelsea Clinton, DNC, Hillary, Rezko, bill clinton, current affairs, democrats, election, hollywood, jim levin, judge munoz, nbc, obama, peter paul, politics, scooter libby, tony rezko| 12 Comments
