The Case Against Hillary Clinton: Appellate Court Finds Illegalities
The best way to understand the case against Hillary Clinton- the frauds she directed to win her Senate seat and the obstructions of justice she orchestrated in plain view to keep it- is to read the explanation of the case of Paul v Clinton presented to California’s Court of Appeals late last year. Peter Paul appealed Hillary Clinton’s purported right to first amendment protection from liability for frauds she directed when she was engaged in illegal campaign fundraising. The allegations of huge tort and election law frauds directed by a President and Senate candidate were corroborated with evidence that speaks for itself in the court pleadings- read the outline and click on the links: The only judicial panel to ever review Hillary Clinton’s conduct as part of a judicial proceeding (the California Appellate Court) did not deny that Hillary’s conduct in obtaining more than $1.2 million from Paul may have been illegal! “Even if some aspect of Senator Clinton’s campaign fundraising 
unrelated to Paul’s claims… were illegal and that illegality could be imputed to Senator Clinton and Clinton for Senate, these defendants are not barred from obtaining the benefit of section 425.16’s right to an early evaluation of Paul’s claims arising from their constitutionally protected activity. ”
Wednesday ~ April 04, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Chelsea Clinton, DNC, Hillary, Jimmy Carter, Rezko, bill clinton, bush, cher, david rosen, democrats, election, entertainment, hsu, obama, peter paul, politics, stan lee, tony rezko, washington| 2 Comments
Obama Rezko Grilling Proves Media Double Standard Covering Up Hillary Clinton’s Galagate
Have the media’s demands that Obama personally explain his relationship with Tony Rezko been orchestrated by Clinton forces confident that Hillary will never be questioned about Peter Paul? How can the media demand Obama personally meet with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune to be grilled for hours about his Rezko relationship while they have and continue to refuse to ask Hillary Clinton ANY questions about her relationship with her top 2000 donor, Peter Paul? Hillary has refused to personally admit she took any of the $1.2 million plus the Department of Justice prosecuted her finance director for hiding in 2005. The media continue to hide a political scandal- dwarfing anything Obama has been linked to with Rezko- that is on a par with Watergate!! The cover-up of the illegalities Hillary directed to win her Senate seat and the obstructions of justice she orchestrated to keep it and avoid accountability have been intentionally hidden from the public by the media and the government. The media has imposed a blackout on any assessments of Hillary’s relationship with Peter Paul that led to the indictment and trial of her finance director and the only fine levied against her Senate campaign by the FEC. No mention has been made of the quid pro quo arranged by Bill Clinton to induce Paul’s becoming Hillary’s top donor, or of the reported deceptions quoted from her in the Washington Post about not taking money from Peter Paul after Hillary had just taken more than $1.2 million from him, and days BEFORE Hillary faxed a demand for another $100,000 in untraceable securities to be wired to a state committee in NY that could hide the contribution from the FEC According to the Department of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity in statements by prosecutors in May, 2005 - it is a felony to “deny the public the right to know Peter Paul personally contributed more than $1.2 million to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign” (Pp 52,55,74,79 Dan Schwager’s Jury Summation, USA v Rosen) Commencing on August 14, 2000, through the present day- Hillary has denied accepting any money at all from Hollywood Dot com Millionaire Peter Paul through two deceptive articles in the Washington Post, false statements by Hillary’s attorney David Kendall, four false FEC reports, false statements to FEC investigators and General Counsel and a false sworn declaration in the civil fraud case that included Hillary as a co-defendant- Paul v Clinton. Hillary has refused to correct her January 30, 2006 FEC report (Pages 34-35 re:Event 39-The Gala Hollywood salute to President Clinton, which itself is a crime. This report misstates that a payment of $839,000 was made by Hillary’s campaign to two of Peter Paul’s dummy companies, Excelsior and Paraversal, (instead reporting the in kind donation of $1.2 million as explained by the FBI and DOJ in the Rosen case) The false FEC report also states that $225,000 was a personal contribution from Stan Lee - even though Lee has sworn he made no such donation, as he confirmed under oath in a videotape deposition. While Hillary Clinton has repeatedly chastised Barak Obama for his relationship with, and contributions from Illinois political fixer Tony Rezko- even though Obama always admitted receiving Rezkp’s contributions and then refunded them- Hillary refuses to admit soiciting and coordinating $1.2 million plus from Peter Paul and the relationship she and Bill established with him that caused him to become her biggest donor to her Senate race by a magnitude of 3 ! The media has never demanded Hillary personally respond to any question about Hillary and Bill Clinton’s connection with Paul. Paul caused the indictment and trial of Hillary’s finance director for defrauding the FEC and the only fine to be imposed by the FEC on Hillary’s Senate campaign- for knowingly filing 3 false reports that hid more than $720,000 donated by Paul. 
Wednesday ~ March 03, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "Norman Hsu", "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Barack, Chelsea Clinton, DNC, Hillary, Rezko, bill clinton, current affairs, david rosen, democrats, election, entertainment, hollywood, hsu, jim levin, nbc, obama, peter paul, politics, race, stan lee, tony rezko, washington| 2 Comments
