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
Hillary’s Peter Paul Case Trumps Obama’s Wright & Rezko Combined
THE DOCUMENTS DON’T LIE… The Public Record of Peter Paul’s Case Against Hillary Clinton Shows a Massive Corruption of The Government and the Media Enabling The Serial Frauds and Illegalities that Won Hillary’s Senate Seat and Obstructed Her Accountability- Enabling Her Race for the White House PaulvClinton.com links all the original court pleadings and government documents, letters, published articles and photos associated with the landmark civil fraud suit Paul v Clinton et al that has now begun discovery for a trial in early 2009. It provides independent and irrefutable evidence of the frauds directed by the Clintons against not only Peter Paul, but also against the voters of New York, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate opponent, the Federal Election Commission, the IRS, the FBI, the Justice Department Office of Public Integrity, the U.S. Senate, the Inspector General, Federal Courts, Grand Juries, and the shareholders of Stan Lee Media. The sole object of these frauds and serial illegalities were to assure the election and then re-election of Hillary Clinton to the Senate and to thwart and obstruct all investigations into those frauds to protect Hillary and Bill Clinton from accountability to the law and to advance their ambitions to regain the White House. The evidence from sworn testimony in court transcripts, FBI declarations, FEC General Counsel reports and investigations, Washington Post stories and original letters, photos and videos present irrefutable proof of a collusion between a sitting U.S. President, a First Lady turned U.S. Senator, and then Chairman of the Democratic Party Ed Rendell to defraud a Hollywood businessman of $2 million and destroy him and his public company in order to generate the largest campaign contribution, made at a President’s request for a quid pro quo, to benefit the Senate candidate. Thereafter corruption by the Clintons of every branch of government that investigated their collusion covered up the illegalities involved and enabled them to avoid accountability from the public and all regulatory and investigatory federal agencies and the federal judiciary. The evidence presented clearly supports the reasonable conclusion that the Clintons have succeeded in exempting themselves from the Rule of Law in the United States and from meaningful scrutiny and exposure by the media at large. These recent documents and the statements by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity Prosecutor explain it all: Federal Election Commission Complaint - December 31, 2007 Peter Paul asks the FEC to void its previous conciliation agreement granting immunity to Hillary Clinton and New York Senate 2000, and to investigate illegal solicitation and coordination of illegal campaign contributions and ongoing violations of reporting laws by Sen. Clinton and her agents. Declaration Against Hillary Clinton By Peter Paul March, 2007 Responsive Declaration by Hillary R Clinton, April, 2007 Statement of Hillary Clinton’s Illegalities to California Appellate Court- They find she might have committed them! See also the Closing Statement to the Jury by Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity prosecutor Dan Schwager in the 2005 trial of Clinton campaign finance director David Rosen. Schwager said that the crime being prosecuted by the government was denying the public’s right to know about Peter Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to Hillary’s campaign, and continued efforts to obstruct that right by filing three false FEC reports - felony charges for which Rosen faced 15 years in jail. Nevertheless, the Federal Election Commission subsequently allowed Hillary and her campaign to file a fourth false report, which the FEC used as a basis to settle all previous violations and immunize the defendants from further investigation. Hillary Clinton Denies Paul Gave Any Money to Washington Post query, and Vows Not To Take Any 3 Days After Paul’s $1.2 Million Fundraiser For Hillary Hillary Clinton Letter to Peter Paul “with gratitude for his friendship” dated a day after second Washington Post article denying his contribution
Thursday ~ May 05, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "Norman Hsu", "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Barack, DNC, Hillary, Rezko, bill clinton, election, entertainment, hollywood, judge munoz, lewis libby, obama, peter paul, politics, race, tony rezko, washington| 5 Comments
