The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company’s stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman, Ben Yarrow, declined last week to say whether Mr. Clinton knew about the Chinese government’s connection to Accoona or the felony fraud conviction of one of the company’s founders.

"President Clinton gave a speech; he did not endorse a product," Mr. Yarrow said.

The $700,000 capital gains was listed on the tax returns of Mr. Clinton’s foundation that were reviewed by The Washington Times.

The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents’ foundations troubles some ethics experts.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which studies political money and ethics, said even though the law doesn’t require former presidents to disclose donations and stock transactions to their foundations, they should do so to avoid the appearance that money was buying special access.

"We’re in a unique period where the wife of a former president is running for the job of the son of a former president," she said, referring to Mrs. Clinton and the current President Bush.

Accoona offered its own Internet search engine as a rival to giants Google and Yahoo, and Mr. Clinton was the keynote speaker at the company’s Dec. 6, 2004, launch in New York. He even joked about the price of the stock that he was given that day as compensation for his speech.

"So I hope you get a big run-up in your stock price, I hope you have a great time doing it, but remember you’re doing something profoundly good for humanity and the future as you do," Mr. Clinton told Accoona executives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yes, it was Chris Matthews:

"I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around…That’s how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, ‘My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,’ right? That’s what happened. That’s how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humilation of Bill Clinton."

I don’t think I have ever seen such a harsh analysis of Hillary Clinton. Not from Sean Hannity. Not from Bill O’Reilly. 

Could the media be turning on Hillary?

Source: Newsbusters

Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.”  The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1.  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY):  In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records.  Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals.  Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again).  And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007.  Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):  Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll.  While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training.  Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful.  Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3.  Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):  In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer.  Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity.  When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed ‘No!’”  When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?”  The power play didn’t work.  Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea.  Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA):  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate’s subcommittee on Military Construction’s approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process.  Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty.  Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing. 

Read the rest of this entry »

DVD with unprecedented home video exposes fraud used to gain power

A revealing, fast-paced and entertaining one-hour documentary with exclusive home videos of Bill and Hillary Clinton that allegedly capture the Democratic presidential front-runner committing crimes in her quest for the Senate and the White House is now available on DVD exclusively from Shop.WND.

"Smoking gun" evidence of Clinton’s multiple violations of federal law in her bid for power is uncovered amid a media and government blackout in "Hillary Uncensored," which tells the star-studded story of Hollywood dot.com mogul Peter Franklin Paul’s civil fraud suit against the Clintons.

The film’s story continues to unfold as the Clintons, along with leading figures in the Democratic Party and Hollywood, will be forced to testify under oath ahead of a trial in the coming year.

Paul presents compelling evidence President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

The documentary opens with scenes from the gala – the largest private concert ever – with Cher singing to an audience of the Democratic Party’s top leaders and A-list entertainers such as Brad Pitt and John Travolta, who were there to salute President Clinton and contribute to Hillary Clinton’s first Senate campaign.

Paul provided five hours of home video to the film producers to document his contention that the Clintons reneged on the deal after the Washington Post published a story about his past felony convictions. The Clinton campaign, he said, then proceeded to cover up his massive contributions and act as if they didn’t know him. Later, according to Paul’s lawsuit, then-President Clinton, working through his aides, maneuvered to destroy Paul’s company, essentially releasing Clinton from any obligation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the latest to feel the sting from a small but growing demographic that could have an outsized impact on the presidential race: people who’ve had bad experiences with a candidate, and who know how to use YouTube.

At issue is a 13-minute preview video co-produced by Peter Paul, a convicted felon and one-time donor to Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, who’s now turned against Clinton in her presidential run.

Titled The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See!, the video has been viewed on YouTube almost 177,000 times. On Google Video, where it first appeared, it’s scored nearly 863,000 hits since it went online mid-July. On Thursday, it was the most viewed clip on the site, boasting 73,000 views, as well as the most e-mailed. The video was one of the most popular items on the news-recommendation site Digg last week, generating more than 4,000 "diggs," and putting it just behind the news that Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert plans to run for president, sort of.

Paul calls all this the "truth-boating" of Clinton’s campaign, alluding to the notorious 2004 advertising campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry by the self-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "soft money" committee.

"It’s a viral example of a story hidden by the media since I started whistle-blowing in 2001," says Paul in an interview. "It’s up to the people on the internet to break the media embargo … on the evidence that the people are entitled to have."

Paul is a Hollywood entrepreneur with a colorful past. He was convicted of scamming Fidel Castro in the late 1970s, and later of traveling with a fake identity. Most recently he pleaded guilty in 2005 to manipulating the stock price of his internet company Stan Lee Media, which he co-founded with the famous comic-book king.

Told from the point of view of Paul, Shocking argues that the Bill and Hilary Clinton made false promises to elicit Paul’s help in organizing a glitzy fundraiser. It charges that Hillary Clinton underreported campaign contributions to the Federal Election Commission. The video is a promotion for a 75-minute documentary on the same subject, called Hillary! Uncensored, set to debut at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire next Saturday. North Carolina investor James Nesfield provided funding for the video and documentary.

The Clinton campaign did not return e-mails or a call for comment.

The complicated allegations in the video and documentary mirror a lawsuit Paul first filed against the Clintons in California six years ago. A state appeals court last week upheld a lower-court ruling that dismissed Bill and Hillary Clinton from the suit, and ordered Paul to pay the Clintons’ attorneys’ fees.

Regardless of the court outcome, the video criticism seems well poised to seed misgivings about Hillary Clinton’s character in the minds of the electorate, in part by reinforcing a suspicion among some voters that the Clintons are prone to shady dealings — a trope that dates back to the Whitewater scandal more than a decade ago.

"Brings back memories of the eight years with them in the White House — one illegal action after another," wrote a poster named Theresa on Friday, on Barack Obama’s message board. "And these aren’t just vicious right-wing conspiracies. The Clintons are masters of deception and keeping themselves free of criminal charges."

Clinton isn’t the first to be hit with a YouTube broadside. Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is getting his share of video criticism, much of it from New York City firefighters and their relatives.

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald most recently released a mini-documentary online that chronicles New York City’s bureaucratic bungling of the modernization of its emergency radio-communications system. The documentary features firefighters, their relatives and a paper trail documenting the inadequacy of the radios.

“Our job is to communicate to people information that they don’t have, and then when they do have the information, to encourage them to take action,” says Greenwald in an interview.

For now, national polls show both Clinton and Giuliani surging ahead of their rivals for their respective parties’ nomination for president — which will likely spur more filmmaking.

Source: Wired

The trailer to a new film about Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, "Hillary Uncensored — Banned by the Media," has garnered big audience numbers — about 1 million viewers — on the Internet. The movie documenting alleged campaign finance violations soon will have several screenings in the Northeast, including three in New Hampshire, the state that will hold the first presidential primary.

The trailer to the documentary was the most-viewed video on Google Video for eight straight days (Oct. 13-20), and dropped to the number two slot on Sunday, Oct. 21. (Google Video is an online video-posting service offered by the highly popular Internet search engine Google.) The trailer also was the only political video to make it onto Google’s Top 100 video list.

While the video was No. 1 and No. 2 for those specified days last week, it had 862,536 "all time" views, which placed it at 819 out of all the videos ranked on Google. In other words, it was the No. 1 video seen for each day last week but was not the most popular video overall on Google over time. Some videos, for instance, have had "views" near 10 million.

The preview to the film — produced by Hollywood businessman Peter F. Paul — was also the number one most-viewed YouTube video in the United Kingdom under the "news & politics" category, according to the YouTube site where it has, so far, earned 173,901 overall viewers. It was also the number six "most viewed overall" for the month in the United States.

Despite the big audience numbers, Paul thinks that Google, in particular, has done little to promote the video because Google has not clearly listed the video in any of its most popular categories.

"The only way to see it is if you look for it," Paul said. To find the video, the words "Hillary Uncensored" must be typed into the Google Video search engine.

In a written statement, Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker said, "While we don’t disclose all the specifics of how we rank videos (to prevent people from gaming the system), I can tell you that results are algorithmically based and that we look at a wide variety of information that ’s associated with each video — such as metadata."

"The top-100 don’t necessarily duplicate the videos in the ‘Popular’ section on the front page, and video rankings fluctuate on a regular basis," Stricker said.

Nonetheless, the popularity of the trailer has prompted Paul and the Equal Justice Foundation of America, which helped him produce the film, to move up the film’s release date to Nov. 1. Also, five screenings have been scheduled for the film before that date.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Rodham Clinton returned more than $800,000 in contributions donated to her presidential campaign that were arranged by alleged swindler Norman Hsu. But campaign officials said Tuesday they had no plans to return more than $260,000 that many of the same donors gave to her Senate political accounts.

Officials said they would return those contributions only if requested to do so by individual contributors.

A Los Angeles Times analysis found that 77 donors whose contributions to the presidential campaign were returned last month also gave to Clinton’s two Senate-related political funds.

Her Senate campaign committee, Friends of Hillary, received $235,000 in donations from the 77 donors later linked to Hsu. Ten of those contributors gave an additional $28,000 to Clinton’s leadership political fund, HillPac.

In September, Clinton announced that she would return all donations to her presidential campaign that were connected to Hsu, who had been one of her most valued fundraisers. She made the decision after reports in The Times that Hsu was a fugitive from a 1991 fraud charge, that he had been pressing some of his investors to contribute to the senator, and that the FBI was looking into his investment schemes.

The refunds to 249 individual donors underlined Clinton’s effort to sever connections with Hsu, who has since been charged by federal prosecutors with swindling more than $60 million from investors nationwide. Clinton nonetheless has no plans to automatically refund money given previously to her Senate accounts by those linked to Hsu.

"Because we did not keep track of contributions in the same way during the Senate campaign we have no basis for knowing that these individuals were solicited by Norman Hsu," said Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson. He said the Clinton campaign had gone beyond what it was legally or ethically bound to do when it gave back the presidential contributions.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we went above and beyond and made a decision to return all contributions credited to Mr. Hsu for the presidential campaign," Wolfson said. "We were not obligated to do so, and in fact other campaigns have chosen to keep contributions in similar situations."

Hsu was virtually unknown in the political world before 2004. But he established himself with Clinton and other Democrats by his ability to help campaigns meet a seemingly unending demand for contributions.

Read the rest of this entry »

An appellate court on Tuesday denied a motion to reinstate Sen. Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a lawsuit that claims she, former President Clinton and others induced a former supporter to finance a 2000 fundraising gala.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to remove the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate from a lawsuit filed by Peter Paul. The three-judge panel also said Clinton can recoup legal costs.

"Today the California appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Peter Paul’s complaint against Sen. Clinton," said the former first lady’s attorney David Kendall. "The court relied upon earlier findings by the Federal Election Commission which found no evidence of misconduct by Sen. Clinton in regard to the 2000 fundraiser."

Paul said he will consider appealing to the California Supreme Court.

"It doesn’t matter to me whether she’s a defendant," Paul said. "What counts is getting Hillary Clinton under oath," as a material witness.

Paul claims he spent more than $1.9 million to underwrite the lavish Hollywood fundraising gala in August 2000 that attracted Brad Pitt, Diana Ross and Cher.

Paul said he financed the event and other fundraisers for Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton agreed to join the board of his company, Stan Lee Media, after he left the White House. Paul has said the event cost nearly $2 million, but campaign reports at the time estimate it was about $500,000. Clinton didn’t end up working with Paul.

The Hollywood fundraiser was the subject of a criminal trial of Clinton’s former national finance director, David Rosen, who was acquitted in May 2005 of lying to the FEC about the event.

Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz dismissed Hillary Clinton from Paul’s lawsuit in April 2006, citing a California statute aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits and protect people’s First Amendment rights. The judge noted Clinton was exercising her free speech rights during her conversations about her fundraising efforts with Paul and others.

Paul’s attorneys argued last month in front of the appellate court that Hillary Clinton broke federal campaign finance laws by helping plan the Hollywood fundraiser. His attorneys contended Clinton’s involvement would make Paul’s campaign contributions "hard money" that far exceeds the $2,000 limit a person can give under federal law.

Read the rest of this entry »

If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination — and she certainly may not — her first and most important decision will be her choice of a running mate.

While the choice will be hers alone, there will be enormous pressure on her within the Democratic Party to choose Barack Obama.

It would be a unifying decision, and parties always seek unity after divisive primary battles.

Putting Obama on the ticket also would be historic in that there has never been a black vice presidential nominee. It would also be fitting in that African-Americans are the most loyal voters that the Democrats have, and no Democrat can get elected to the presidency without an overwhelming black vote.

Putting Obama on the ticket might also make possible the winning of some Southern states that have large numbers of black voters but have gone Republican in the past. (The John Kerry-John Edwards ticket did not carry a single Southern state in 2004, even though Edwards was born in South Carolina and had represented North Carolina in the Senate.)

Obama said recently: “I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I’m the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum.” He said he could carry Mississippi and Georgia and put South Carolina in play.

While Obama was talking about what would happen if he were the nominee, even as No. 2 on the ticket, he might reasonably be expected to increase black turnout in key states.

Of course, Obama might not want to be vice president. But if he does, denying him a spot on the ticket might be very tough to do if he finishes a strong second in the primaries and caucuses.

Read the rest of this entry »

Everyone has heard about the money laundering scandal from Hsu and all the thousands of monies the Clintons will have to give up now that it has been exposed. Now you are hearing about the media manipulations from Hillary. Well, there is a history that all should know. Just research “Peter Paul”. If you don’t want a manipulative criminal for the next president please help spread this news.