Please, GOP, Don’t Swift-Boat Hillary! (You Might Rally the Wrong Base)…

VRC has-beens Davd "Flattop" Bossie and ho’-toe sucker Dick Morris and the rest are threatening to swift-boat Hillary with Whitewater, Travelgate and even cattle futures. But nothing could energize Dems faster than the poo-slinging monkeys o…

We don’t need to worry about no steenkin’ Swiftboaters, Hillary’s got her own not so swift boat, the USS Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has done more to remind the country why she is unelectable than the swiftboaters could achieve in their dreams.

In the last week alone she has been arrogant, thin skinned, self serving and unwilling to admit error.

Hiding behind Duhbya’s skirts is not particularly attractive either. “Oh poor me, I was misled, if only I’d known then what I know now….”. What in the world would tempt anyone to vote for that? She is concerned about looking “Presidential”. That is “Presidential” as “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” was “Presidential” or “I am not a crook” was “Presidential”. Harry Truman and “The buck stops here” is a model of “Presidential” that might get her somewhere.

People do not want a groveling apology. They do want an acknowledgement that the vote for war was wrong, that the evidence was available at the time (ask Senator Jim Webb) and that Hillary was mistaken when she chose not to see it and boarded the bandwagon for a war of aggression against Iraq.

But that gets us back to arrogant, self serving, thin skinned, etc, etc, etc.

Kerry was a cooperative victim of the swift-slimers. I am one who believes that Kerry was the fall guy of choice of the Right. I also believe he knew that. Never forget how he folded the election despite the evidence for fraud in Ohio. Hillary will bring out the base for Right. They need her. Even if she were to win the presidency we progressives still loose. Hillary and Bill love the WTO, inprisonment for victimless crimes, deregulated media, etc, etc. Bill will be a continous distraction from the key issues.
Let the swift-slimers waste their money on Hillary and then let us defeat her in the primaries. Give me Gore/Obamma!!!!

NOTE: if you don’t want to publish this because you are a Hillary supporter, I understand. But I assure you, this case is going forward and it is important. Wouldn’t you like to know about it so you would know how to fight it?
=================================

It is good to be against lies, John. Here are some truths, however, about which you may not be aware.

1. An historic civil suit, Paul v Clinton will soon be heard in Los Angeles Superior Court.

2. On Sept. 7, the California Appellate Court will hear arguments about bringing Hillary back into the case as a defendant, along with her husband and others.

3. Hillary is soon going to be under oath.

4. Her declaration to the court presented on April 7, 2006 is, shall we say, less than accurrate.

5. There is compelling evidence of the Clinton role in the collapse of a public company, Stan Lee Media. We have found the recorded document that tells the story. Six days after Hillary was elected in 2000, a partnership agreement was recorded with the Sec. of State in Illinois for VentureSoft. It was recorded for SLM’s Japanese business partner Tendo Oto, and Clinton’s agent Jim Levin. By stealing the business partner, it prevented his additional infusion of $5 mil that had been promised in Nov. 2000. When that cash didn’t come, the company collapsed.

6. After a two-year battle with an assistant US ATTY, a tape was finally released that had been withheld during official investigations. The video shows Hillary’s knowledge, participation, and solicitation of an illegal $1.6 mil in-kind, hard money donation.

7. In Dec. 2005, the FEC detemined, in a conciliation agreement with treasurer Andrew Grossman, that the campaign deliberately hid $721,000. The campaign was ordered to file a fourth amended report.

8. The fourth FEC report, filed in Jan. 2006, is the fourth fraudulent report. Among the many “factual errors” was the claim that Spiderman Stan Lee gave $225,000. We have his taped deposition in which he swears that he gave no money. Hillary and her treasurer know that.

Call this Hillary bashing if you like. Call this the vast right wing conspiracy if you like. But this case has compelling evidence, including 5 hours of candid home video footage with Hillary. No one has ever had that kind of footage before.

At the heart of the FEC case, is the claim by Hillary’s counsel, that the $1.6 mil in-kind donation by Peter Paul was soft money given to a joint fundraising committee. In her sworn declaration, Hillary actually probably doesn’t realize that she told the truth when she said that the concert produced by Gary Smith was for “my Senate campaign.” Also, her White House aide Kelly Craighead, who will be called to testify, was directly involved in soliciting the donation. That clearly makes it hard money and illegal. Craighead worked for the White House and Hillary, not a soft money joint fundraising campaign.

Here is the story, well-sourced and with a great deal of background. I have read thousands of pages of documents and seen the 5 hours of home video.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873379/posts

If you don’t want to post this, that is fine. But I suggest that you save it for posterity. The court case moves forward.

Addition to previous post. I join perhaps many of you in saying no more Bushes or Clintons. Let’s have a real debate about real issues without those two families being involved. An Obama-Thompson or Edwards-Thompson race would be a refreshing change. We can disagree on the ideology, but at least we would have some candidates who are not carrying a trainload full of baggage. We can talk about issues, not scandal. May the best argument win.

Free Republic, Doug? Your credibility is evaporating before your eyes. I watched the YouTube video and to say there is no there there is an understatement. It’s just a conference call among Clinton and some supporters. Despite what your supers say, nothing illegal was mentioned or even hinted at.

I live in LA and I’m familiar with this story and basically it is a big nothing-burger as regards Hillary’s direct culpability. For one thing, it’s hard to fathom what her motive would be. Her senate campaign raised upwards of $30 mil, if memory serves. Why would she risk jail to rip off poor old Stan Lee?

I also have to say that the story as you have laid it out here is disjointed and convoluted, filled with the same sort of breathless but unfounded accusations we heard about the travel office, Whitewater, Filegate, the Rose billing records, ad nauseum. For one thing, when you lay out a timeline, you have to detail the events in chronological order. Otherwise it appears you’re being intentionally confusing.

Maybe your still upset about the fact that Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Al D’Amato and the rest of those big ol’ softies could get anything on Hillary when they had her by the short hairs.

Have you ever considered the fact that if somebody as evil, vile and vicious as DeLay had goods on Hillary, she’d be under the jail right now?

All in all, this smacks of the same wishful thinking from the right that we endured over and over and over in the 1990s, and it is exactly what I was referring to in the post above. If you want to finally get Dems so pissed off that we’ll all can’t wait to rush to the polls to vote for her, all you have to do is keep coming up with this sort of half-baked bullshit.

If Hillary Clinton is the evil, amoral thief and murderer youall think she is, then don’t you think she is too smart to get caught ordering her henchmen to rip off famous people? Makes no sense.

I’m a Wesley Clarke supporter who is leaning toward Bill Richardson but I have to say that the closest I’ve been yet to pitching in with Hillary is at this very moment.

Well, Jon, when you have finished reading probably 12,000 pages of documents, then we can have a discussion. It may be helpful to also know something about campaign finance law. If you don’t know anything about it, spend many hours with an attorney who specializes in this area of the law. Just a suggestion.

If you read all of the briefs and filings, and if you spent some time in the courtroom, you would know that David Kendall has claimed that the money spent by Peter Paul was for a “joint fundraising committee,” and thus, soft money. That made that argument to the FEC’s counsel general.

Kendall further claims that those involved in the fundraiser worked for the joint fundraising committee. Well, Kelly Craighead was part of the July 11 conference call, the call made six days prior to the one you see on video. With David Rosen and others, they came up with the idea for a Hollywood event after they had just finished a fundraiser in Chicago in which Olivia Newton John had performed.

In the call you saw, Hillary acknowledges that her agent, Kelly Craighead, has kept her fully briefed. Hillary offers additional help. Craighead was one of her agents who solicited the money. The July 11 call, which you have not yet heard, involved Craighead, Jim Levin, Aaron Tonken, David Rosen, and Howard Wolfson. During that call it was acknowledged that the event would cost $1,050,000. Peter was to pay half and Cynthia Gershman was to pay half. Ultimately, Gershman bailed, so Peter ended up paying for the whole thing. Craighead was not part of any joint fundraising committee. She was a WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE and headed the advance team for Hillary. The law bars Craighead from such solicitations. Because of Craighead’s involvement as agent of Hillary, and Hillary’s encouragement of her agent in the activity, the participation and solicitation, the entire $1.6 million spent by Peter Paul is hard money. It was not for a joint fundraiser or for DNC party building. Anything above $2,000 was illegal.

Prior to the release of the video, obtained after a two-year battle with an assistant US ATTY, Hillary probably planned to make the claim that she never was part of any such conversation. That will no longer work.

You are also wrong in your comment that she ripped off Stan Lee. You really are clueless in this case. It was made clear to Rosen and all of the others that the event was not being funded by Lee or by Stan Lee Media. Peter borrowed on his own stock to pay for it all, including the Spago and Gershman events. I have Stan’s deposition on tape in which he swears that he gave no money. Despite that testimony, in her fourth fraudulent FEC report in Jan. 2006, Hillary claimed that Lee gave 225K. That is a lie, and she knows it is lie.

You may live in L.A., Jon, but you obviously know very little about the case. Just living here doesn’t mean you are going to get it by osmosis. It really does take a great deal of reading and research. I’d love to see you in the courtroom next time and help get you up to speed.

I have nothing to do with anything DeLay or D’Amato or any others did. I have spent two and a half years on this case and read more documents than I ever thought I would.

Regarding putting people in jail, you will see Dave Schippers on film talking about that. There are often political considerations prosecutors must face. A DC jury would never unanimously convict Hillary of anything. That is why Robert Ray, whose final report indicated that Hillary gave testimony that was “factually inaccurate,” did not indict her. Sandy Berger should be in prison for what he did, but he walked.

Hillary is going to come to regret one sentence from her lying declaration in which she actually told the truth. She said that the concert produced by Gary Smith was for “my Senate campaign.” My Senate campaign, not a joint fundraiser.

You will probably keep up your spinning, and the Internet allows you to do that. You are free to say anything you wish, and you probably will. I won’t use the word “bullshit” as you did. I can’t give you even that much credit until you at least do a little homework. I would love to come to a debate where the guy on the other side of this issue was able to recognize that you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. You are way out of your league here.

In 15 words or less, what crimes are you accusing Hillary Clinton of?

Are you seriously suggesting that Republican United States attorneys in the Bush Justice Dept., the most heavily politicized Justice Dept. in our history — which we know now is under the direct control of Karl Rove — would not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton?

Amazing. I took a great deal of time to explain what is at the heart of 2 1/2 years of research. You refer to my research as bullshit. And you now want 15 words?

You are either politically naive or are just being intentionally dense. But I’ll give it another shot.

Yes, there are political considerations when politically connected people are charged. What do you think would happen if Hillary were actually charged? Her political stock would skyrocket and the money would come pouring in as never before. She would be a victim and use it to her advantage as she has always done before.

Among other things, Bill Clinton committed perjury, suborned perjury, turned in a false affidavit to the court, and tried to fix a federal trial. He was never criminally tried for that in regular court. He would have never been convicted in either DC or Virginia. There would always be at least one juror who would hold out for political purposes.

I helped get evidence presented to the lead attorneys during impeachment regarding Clinton’s perjury in his video testimony in the Branscomb and Hill criminal trial. He testified in that trial that he never took money for state commissions. An associate of mine had eight witnesses prepared to testify that they either bought state commissions or helped launder the money. A man who has subsequently become a good friend of mine watched Clinton take an envelope with $10,000 in it for a job on the police commission. Clinton was not unique. It happens all the time in both parties. Spiro Agnew got an envelope with 10 grand delivered to him at the White House. Nevertheless, the investigators did not pursue it as part of impeachment. Unfortunately, Dave Schippers was never told by them of the info until after impeachment. Had he known, he told me he likely would have pursued it.

I can’t explain what it is, but there is something incestuous between the Bushes and Clintons. Maybe it goes back to Mena. Terry Reed has spoken to me at great length about that. Whatever the case, this nation can stand no more Bushes or Clintons or the partisanship will never end. We need someone new. If it is a Democrat’s turn, let’s have an honest debate, and so be it.

At the heart of this case are four false FEC reports and obstruction of justice. The FEC already determined that three were false reports and that the campaign hid $721,000. That is of record. The FEC may or may not address the latest fraudulent report.

I spoke to the lead attorney of the Senate Ethics Committee when the GOP held control. They held a sham ethics investigation which relied solely on the flawed FEC investigation. They refused to call key witnesses who should have testified. The guys in power fight each other, but very often that is for public consumption and they end up protecting each other to a certain degree.

In this case, very simply, if a candidate solicits a donation directly or an agent solicits it for the candidate, it is a hard money donation. The limit in 2000 was $2,000. The video evidence shows Hillary’s involvement and it references Craighead’s involvement. A White House employee cannot solicit someone to donate over a million dollars directly for a candidate, whether it is cash or in-kind. That is illegal. Interestingly, when Howard Wolfson was trotted out to lie to the voters a few days after the Gala, he actually admitted that the event cost a million dollars but was in-kind and not a check. Um, Howard. That doesn’t matter.

Hillary admitted in her own declaration that the concert produced by Gary Smith was “for my Senate campaign.” He charged $800,000, which was the largest expense Peter had for the production.

Hillary either did not know of this tape, forgot about the tape, or one of her stooges in the Justice Department screwed up and did not destroy it. In any event, it really is important evidence.

Peter filed his civil suit in June of 2001. On July 11, David Kendall accepted service that included $1.6 million of evidence of what he had spent on her campaign. A press conference was held at the National Press Club and a representative of Hillary’s was there. A messenger delived a demand letter to her Senate office to declare the contribution accurately to the FEC. Nevertheless, she allowed her treasurer to file a third false FEC report on July 30, 2001 that declared the cost of Event 39 at $401,000, raising it from the false $366K in the first two reports. Turning in a false report to a government agency is a crime.

I was at the Rosen trial. He was acquitted for several reasons, not the least of which was that the jury was totally confused by hard and soft money. L.A. juries have quite a history of incompetence. They also never heard from several of the key witnesses or got to hear the words of Rosen secretly caught with a government wire. I have compared the prosecution to the 1919 Black Sox. They never asked important follow-up questions.

There are many things in politics that cannot be explained. It is indeed a dirty business. Our Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who would go serve their country and then go back home to their jobs. The last one of those was Sonny Bono, who tragically died in a skiing accident. He was going to serve a few terms and then go back home.

Hillary Clinton is ruthless, evil, manipulative, dishonest, and will do absolutely anything for power. I disagree with most of the positions of most of the candidates on both sides. But from your side, I don’t think that Edwards, Obama, Clarke, Gravel, Kucinich, or Richardson pose a danger to this great Republic. Hillary does.

I’m neither naive nor dense, I am BORED. What I’m getting is that you are a Clinton-hater, that your seething loathing of the Clintons has become your avocation.

You seem unable or unwilling to come to the point. As it is, your presentation rambles and perambulates, lurching from one arcane, unexplained reference to another (who is Mena, rings a bell, I guess I should look it up - nah) and is filled with irrelevant facts. There is no evidence Sonny Bono was going to retire and the fact that his widow is still in his seat makes what he was going to do irrelevant. I seriously doubt Cher played the Clinton benefit for free — that would a career first for her — so whether she made an “in-kind” donation is equally irrelevant.

As to who poses a danger to this great republic, that bus has come and gone. Your guy has done more in seven and a half years to destroy this country than the Clintons could do if they had the rest of their lives and were are as evil and corrupt as you believe they are. The United States government is literally in peril because of the actions of George Bush, Dick Cheney and their gang of authoritarians.

In what may be the most immoral act of any sitting president, Bush divided the country, pitting us against each other while misleading (half of) us into a war for which the planning was feloniously incompetent and the execution was abysmal.

Over 3,000 U.S. soldiers and 600,000 innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed since the invasion began. Tens of thousands of our people have been wounded. Not one of these deaths or casualties was necessary — and their blood is on the hands of George W. Bush and everyone who ever voted for him. supported him or looked the other way while he committed these horrific acts.

He has also admitted to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act dozens of times, which means he has committed hundreds of federal offenses by spying on American citizens.

And Bush was apparently laid up drunk while people were drowning in the streets of New Orleans, and thus became the only president to lose an American city since the Civil War.

Bush-Cheney stole the election in 2000 and now there is evidence they caged votes in Florida in 2004, as well as evidence Republicans tampered with voting machines in Ohio in 2004.

I can’t even imagine what Clinton haters would say if any of this had happened on Clinton’s watch.

Karl Rove has been running the RNC out of the White House since 2001, so I don’t think you’ll get very far on Craighead’s alleged involvement. There are enough shenanigans about donations on the Republican side so that even if there is a violation here, I doubt anyone will pursue it, and even if they did, FEC fines are routinely paid.

If Hillary had stolen the money, or tried to, I refuse to believe that the Rove DoJ wouldn’t have gone after her with both barrels.

This ain’t the 1990s. The lawless gang in power now has effectively let the helium out of the Clinton conspiracies gasbag. Nothing the Clintons have done could ever — ever — equal shredding the Constitution, rendering quaint the Geneva Conventions and befouling the laws of the United States accomplished by Bush, Cheney and their cronies.

Your impeachment of Clinton over a sex lie has been effective in that it helped Bush become president and that it has depressed interest now in impeaching him. But Bush’s troubles — and the troubles of Republicans and their fellow travelers — won’t end when he leaves office. Not hardly. And while the Bush gang is being pursued over the next few years, there won’t be any oxygen left for going after the Clintons on trumped up charges and half-baked theories.

If you want to do your best to get Hillary elected, keep this up, Doug. As noted, you’ve almost converted me.

You presume I am here defending Bush. I’m doing a film. I tried to engage you in a meaningful dialogue and made a mistake. You had no interest in listening. That’s fine.

This shows I really have been dealing with a lightweight —- “I seriously doubt Cher played the Clinton benefit for free — that would a career first for her — so whether she made an “in-kind” donation is equally irrelevant.” She did not get paid in money. Hillary’s solicitation of her made what she did an in-kind contribution. I would site specific statutes for you, but you obviously wouldn’t understand them. You can read my reporting from the courtroom and have your mommy and daddy explain it to you.

I understand it perfectly, Doug. I certainly know the difference between soft money and hard donations. I’m also well-versed in the Arkansas Project, the Arkansas troopers’ deceptions, lying David Hale, Scaife, Olson, Tyrrell and the whole cabal. What you’ve presented here just a second verse same as the first. You’ve got nothing except a dream of bringing the Clintons down. I admire your chutzpah for thinking you could do with an amateur documentary what Ken Starr and $40 million could not.

What you don’t want to understand is that you won’t have a chance to pursue the Clintons with this nonsense because the dynamics have changed. You and everyone on your side will be too busy playing defense on behalf of your Dear Leader Bush from here on out to pursue your Clinton fantasies.

The enormity of what Bush and company have done has not yet fully registered with the public, and won’t as long as he controls the White House megaphone. That reality will only begin to seep out during the next president’s term when records are unsealed and secrets revealed, drip by drip by drip.

I doubt you’ll get much support from the GOP in the next Congress, either. For one thing, they may lose up to 12 seats in the Senate, down to only 36, which is not enough even to filibuster. Maybe you can get ol’ Dan Burton to shoot a watermelon again, but nobody takes him seriously anymore. I just don’t see John Boehner leaving his tanning bed long enough to launch another anti-Clinton snipe hunt.

Even if Hillary did whatever it is you are accusing her of — you live in LA and you’re making a film and you don’t have your elevator pitch down? — it pales in comparison with Bush’s culpability in the needless deaths of American soldiers, committing federal offenses by spying on Americans, firing U.S. attorneys because they wouldn’t play GOP hardball, etc. These aren’t things that happened 10 years before Bush’s term in office, as Whitewater did before Clinton’s, but actual criminal actions taken while he is president.

You can either get used to having his excesses weighed against your allegations against the Clintons from here on out — or you could save yourself and your project by advocating Bush’s impeachment now. Strategically, the only chance you have of “getting” the Clintons next year and so forth is to neutralize Bush’s culpability today.

You won’t do that because you are obsessed with Bill and Hillary. The fact that you are blind to this now will result in Bush and his crimes being tied around your neck for the next eight or 10 years, whether you like it or not.

Good luck with that.