The landmark civil fraud suit, Paul v Clinton et al pending in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Clintons on and off since 2001 has been hidden from the public by the mainstream media for seven years. While the case was showcased in the documentary trailer for Hillary! Uncensored which made internet history with more than five million downloads in a few weeks in November, 2007, it has remained under the radar of the public consciousness as part of the greatest political scandal cover-up since Watergate.

On Thursday, February 21, 2008, a hearing before Judge Munoz will be held in Paul v Clinton with David Kendall representing the Clintons. A trial date will be set for late in 2008 and a discovery schedule will be created for sworn depositions to be taken of all principal witnesses.

The limited perception and understanding that exists of the case is that it is simply a business fraud suit by Clinton donor and erstwhile Clinton employer Peter Paul against Bill Clinton who was aided and abetted by Hillary in inducing Paul to spend more than $1.2 million to elect Hillary to the Senate with a false promise to work with paul when Clinton left the White House.

Paul and Clinton Review Terms of Employment for Bill’s Post White House Consulting Services August 12, 2000

But the prosecution of the first suit to haul a President and Senator into court for fraud and coercion has the potential of revealing through sworn testimony of the Clinton hierarchy of the Democratic Party the culture of corruption that permeates the party and egregious examples of party leaders including Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe as frauds and scofflaws.

The threat to the party as well as the Clintons that is posed by the discovery and trial in the suit is that it not only links the Clintons personally to felony violations of the law and obstructions of justice but it will also destroy the credibility of Clinton surrogates who control the party at a time when Obama will be looking to take over the Party with his people.

Read the rest of this entry »

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year’s Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department’s elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

"He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face," remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. "We really didn’t even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that’s how badly he was injured."

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The perpetrators were members of Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN (the Spanish acronym), a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about independence for Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged war on America with bombings, arson, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation. The most gruesome attack was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to go off during the lunch-hour rush, the explosion decapitated one of the four people killed and injured another 60.

FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims "reactionary corporate executives" and threatening: "You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can’t escape." By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies — a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.

On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he "will not rest until justice is done." Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.

Mr. Clinton justified the clemencies by asserting that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes. None of the petitioners, he stated, had been directly involved in crimes that caused bodily harm to anyone. "For me," the president concluded, "the question, therefore, was whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose."

His comments, including the astonishing claim that the FALN prisoners were being unfairly punished because of "guilt by association," were widely condemned as a concession to terrorists. Further, they were seen as an outrageous slap in the face of the victims and a bitter betrayal of the cops and federal law enforcement officers who had put their lives on the line to protect the public and who had invested years of their careers to put these people behind bars. The U.S. Sentencing Commission affirmed a pre-existing Justice Department assessment that the sentences, ranging from 30 to 90 years, were "in line with sentences imposed in other cases for similar terrorist activity."

The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives — including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton’s action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered. In contravention of standard procedures, none of these agencies, victims or families of victims were consulted or notified prior to the president’s announcement.

"I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners," wrote Deborah Devaney, one of the federal prosecutors who spent years on the cases. "The conspirators made every effort to murder and maim. . . . A few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their way."

Observed Judge George Layton, who sentenced four FALN defendants for their conspiracy to use military-grade explosives to break an FALN leader from Ft. Leavenworth Penitentiary and detonate bombs at other public buildings, "[T]his case . . . represents one of the finest examples of preventive law enforcement that has ever come to this court’s attention in the 20-odd years it has been a judge and in the 20 years before that as a practicing lawyer in criminal cases."

The FBI cracked the cases with the discovery of an FALN safe house and bomb factory. Video surveillance showed two of those on the clemency list firing weapons and building bombs intended for an imminent attack at a U.S. military installation. FBI agents obtained a warrant and entered the premises, surreptitiously disarming the bombs whose components bore the unmistakable FALN signature. They found 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false IDs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

A total of six safe houses were ultimately uncovered. Seven hundred hours of surveillance video were recorded, resulting in a mountain of evidence connecting the 16 prisoners to multiple FALN operations past and present.

Federal law enforcement agencies considered these individuals so dangerous, extraordinary security precautions were taken at their numerous trials. Courthouse elevators were restricted and no one, including the court officers, was permitted to carry a firearm in the courtroom.

Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, "Bill’s Little Gift.")

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide "listening tour" in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) — along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.

Initial reports stated that Mrs. Clinton supported the clemencies, but when public reaction went negative she changed course, issuing a short statement three weeks after the clemencies were announced. The prisoners’ delay in refusing to renounce violence "speaks volumes," she said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Among Billaryland’s inner circle, Maggie Williams is renowned as the ultimate Hillary loyalist, fierce and unwavering in her devotion for nearly 25 years.

As the First Lady’s chief of staff, her office was in the West Wing, right next to Hillary’s.

Her title gave away the extent of her clout: assistant to the President as well as Hillary’s gatekeeper and chief enforcer.

Even detractors agree with her admirers that Williams would go to the mat for Hillary.

A Kansas City native, Williams, 53, was a central player in the Clinton damage-control machine during the White House years.

In 1995, a uniformed Secret Service officer swore under oath he saw her leave White House lawyer and Hillary confidant Vince Foster’s office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide. Williams denied it.

She ran up more than $100,000 in legal bills defending Hillary in various investigations.

A former aide to Reps. Morris Udall of Arizona and Robert Torricelli (later senator) of New Jersey, Williams’ ties to Hillary date to when they both were at the Children’s Defense Fund in the 1980s.

After the Clintons left the White House, Williams was named president of Fenton Communications, a leading public relations and consulting firm.

When Bill and Hillary Clinton made remarks before the South Carolina primary that offended African-Americans, the campaign put her on the airwaves to try to quell the uproar.

"She’s never run a political campaign, but she has run a staff and isn’t afraid to crack heads," a Democratic booster said.

Source: Daily News

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, and lawyer, has written a very troubling piece, here, about his professional experience with the young lawyer, Hillary Rodham, in the course of the Nixon Impeachment hearings. Candidate Hillary Clinton now speaks non-stop about her work at the Children’s Defense Fund, after Yale law school. In doing so, she stretches the truth by claiming that she spent her time "fighting for abused women and children" (advocating for larger welfare benefits is more like it). But the job that brought her to the attention of the political universe, to which she no longer refers, was serving as a junior staffer on the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff, in 1974, which Mr. Zeifman ran.

Mr. Zeifman writes:

After President Nixon’s resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

He goes on to explain that Hillary’s efforts to deny Nixon "representation by counsel," a basic right in our system of law, had to do with her patron, Senator Kennedy. It was known that, as part of his defense Nixon would argue that his after the fact knowledge of the Watergate break-in paled in comparison to J.F.K.’s activities, including "using the Mafia to attempt to kill Castro, successfully assassinating both Patrice Lamumba of the Congo, and Diem of South Vietnam." Teddy did not want a sitting president to make that case.

Clinton was also helpful in creating delays, in an attempt to keep Nixon in office and bleeding as long as possible. Apparently Kennedy and (his personal lawyer ) Marshall were convinced that a very liberal Democrat could win in 1976 if Nixon were still in office. They didn’t want to see him resign too quickly. Hillary was helpful there, too, in subverting the instructions from her boss, Zeifman, and his boss, Tip O"Neill. O’Neill was especially concerned that no rules be changed and that the law be scrupulously observed. Hillary ignored him.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Thursday night, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will square off in a debate in California.

If it gets testy, Obama will need some better zingers than his rather weak shot at Sen. Clinton in the last debate, when he told her that “you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart” when he was working the streets of Chicago as a community organizer.

Now, I know Wal-Mart is a bad word in some Democratic circles, but how lame is that?

As I watched, I thought it’s too bad Democrats spent so much time trashing Kenneth Starr, the Clinton-era Whitewater independent counsel, because Starr’s investigators gathered a vast trove of material that today would be a great source of opposition research on the Clintons.

Prosecutors never charged Mrs. Clinton with breaking any laws, but their work left no doubt that she sometimes had a shaky relationship with the truth, even when testifying under oath.

Exhibit A — still available on the Web — is the independent counsel’s report on the White House Travel Office firings.

In 1993, the new first lady pushed hard for mass firings in the office, getting rid of longtime employees so Clinton buddies could get a piece of the White House press corps travel business.

She told David Watkins, the aide whose job it was to actually lower the boom on the workers, “Well, you know we need to have our people in there,” according to Watkins’s testimony.

Read the rest of this entry »

To each his schadenfreude.

I’ve enjoyed seeing the Clintons exposed for their mean, racializing campaign tactics lately - the smirk on Bill ("the first black president") as he implied that Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson are a couple of black guys no one should take seriously.

But don’t overlook the Clintons’ record in power. After all, they were president for eight years, governor before, and senator after. They sometimes got a pass due to the moralizing, evangelizing rightwing lynch mob that pursued them. But consider the record.

When Bill ran for president in 1992, he made a special trip back to Arkansas for the execution of a brain-damaged black man who asked to leave the dessert at his last meal for "later." As governor, Bill could have pardoned him, but the point was to show he could be tough on crime. It was the exact equivalent of Senator Hillary voting for the war in Iraq - to show she was tough enough to be president. You could almost excuse the pandering in order to win, if they’d used the power to accomplish something. Uh-uh.

They had a Democratic congress but failed on health care and caved on the subject of gays in the military. They had the dotcom boom with them, but incomes for the vast majority of Americans stagnated in their years in office. They jailed blacks at a far higher rate than the Reagan administration. They adopted the corporate agenda for NAFTA, throwing American workers out of jobs and creating despair in Mexico, leading to the influx of "illegals" from there.

As for foreign policy, they prevented a solution in Bosnia in order to bomb there, and then attacked Serbia in 1999, creating the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that was the excuse for the bombing - as well as setting a precedent for the Bush attack on Iraq. They tightened the screws on Iraq through sanctions, leading to perhaps thousands of deaths of kids and vast resentment among Muslims. They were the table-setters for the Bush wars.

Bill Clinton’s sole accomplishment as president was to be on stage, along with Monica Lewinsky, when 400 years of sexual puritanism in the U.S. finally came up short. It wasn’t anything he intended.

Read the rest of this entry »

Legacy? What legacy?

There was general amazement when (the now-muzzled) Bill Clinton did his red-faced, attack-dog, race-baiting performance in South Carolina. Friends, Democrats and longtime media sycophants were variously perplexed, repulsed, enraged, mystified and shocked that this beloved ex-president would so jeopardize his legacy by stooping so low.

What they don’t understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy — a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem.

Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no Democrat has done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush.

But Clinton knows this is all written on sand. It is the stuff of celebrity. What gnaws at him is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama’s statement that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that … Bill Clinton did not."

The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. And not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama’s assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.

Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance.

By comparison, Clinton was a historical parenthesis. He can console himself — with considerable justification — that he simply drew the short straw in the chronological lottery: His time just happened to be the 1990s which, through no fault of his own, was the most inconsequential decade of the 20th century. His was the interval between the collapse of the Soviet Union on Dec. 26, 1991, and the return of history with a vengeance on Sept. 11, 2001.

Clinton’s decade, that holiday from history, was certainly a time of peace and prosperity — but a soporific Golden Age that made no great demands on leadership. What, after all, was his greatest crisis? A farcical sexual dalliance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Of all the arguments against Hillary Clinton’s nomination, her tenure on the board of Wal-Mart may be the most ironically damaging. Democrats survive on the money that labor unions generate, and they have a passionate hatred for the nation’s largest retailer, which has successfully kept unions from organizing their workers. John Edwards and Barack Obama have repeatedly demonized Wal-Mart, even though most analysts agree that its low prices and job opportunities represent a net benefit to lower-income communities.

Hillary has attempted to parry criticism of her Wal-Mart connection by claiming that she did what she could to press for positive change while on the board. ABC News has reviewed hours of stockholder meeting videotapes and finds no evidence that she ever pushed Wal-Mart to be more union friendly:

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world’s largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her. …

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.

Republicans will likely laugh at this line of attack. It’s not one voters will see in a general election, should she win the nomination. The Right sees this obsessive focus on Wal-Mart as a strange passion indeed. People don’t have to shop or work at Wal-Mart, and I don’t do either, but they certainly have the right to argue against unionization if they desire, as long as they follow the law in doing so. They also can offer whatever wages they desire; they have to compete for labor in what has been for years a very tight market, and so they have to be able to beat other retailers to get the best workers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Starting with Obama’s big win in South Carolina, followed by the exit polling that suggested Bill Clinton had offended Democrats with his race-baiting, and enhanced by Sen. Ted and Caroline Kennedy’s seemingly poignantly symbolic endorsements — something close to an Obama fever is sweeping over media commentators. Maybe they are right, and Bill and Hillary are about to be discarded (figuratively, not literally) as dispositively as Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were in Romania on Christmas Day 1989 — a fierce personal rejection of a ruling couple.

The metaphor that is being more bandied about is that this is "The Last Hurrah" for the Clintons. This refers to the eponymous classic Edwin O’Connor novel from 1956 in which a beloved and superb old-time big-city mayor (Frank Skeffington) loses his last race to a faceless cipher because times have changed. In that instance, what had changed was that big-city mayors were being undercut by New Deal national welfare programs in their ability to deliver money, housing, jobs and health care largesse to the voters.

What the Clintons are betting on is that the correct correlation is to Walter Mondale’s 1984 nomination fight with Gary Hart, who stylized himself as the fresh face who would appeal to the younger voters and criticized Mondale as old-fashioned and representing failed policies of the past. Mondale relied on his institutional power and the allegation that Hart’s "new ideas" were insubstantial. (He famously used the advertisement phrase of the time, "Where’s the beef?")

Certainly, Obama is vulnerable to the charge that his "change" theme is insubstantial. His and Hillary’s policies seem almost identical. And when he talks about working together with Republicans rather than perpetuating the old partisan divisiveness, Hillary could challenge Obama to explain where he would cave to Republicans to end the divisiveness.

Read the rest of this entry »

By: Karen Russell

It’s baaack! Just when you thought it was safe, we are back at Whitewater. If Hillary and her attack pack want to play the Rezko card, let’s all strap on some waders, because now we’re forced to wade through the Whitewater mud again.

Clinton claimed Obama represented Tony Rezko. Obama never represented Rezko. Never. Ever.

According to the Washington Post:

"William Miceli, Obama’s supervisor at the law firm, said the firm represented the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago’s South Side with Rezko. He called Clinton’s assertion that Obama represented Rezko in a slum landlord business ‘categorically untrue. He was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review,’ said Miceli, adding that Obama did what he was told by the firm. According to Miceli, that was the only time Obama worked on a Rezko-related project while at the law firm…But investigations by Chicago newspapers have not produced evidence that he represented Rezko in a slum landlord business. What has been demonstrated so far is that he did some due diligence legal work for a joint venture between Rezko and a Chicago nonprofit. Two Pinocchios for Clinton."

FactCheck.org says "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There’s no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was representing … Rezko.’ That’s untrue."

Read the rest of this entry »