Remember when I told you the story of Peter Paul v. Hillary Clinton? Well, the case of campaign finance fraud has hit the appellate court today. NoBoddie's fool's got the story right:
Hillary Clinton and funny money go together like Bill Clinton and anything with big boobs.
The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, will hear arguments about whether Hillary Clinton should be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul.
Attorneys for each side will also debate the inclusion as evidence of a videotape in which Clinton can be heard agreeing to plan a fundraiser, which was later determined to be illegal by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
Paul's legal counsel, the United States Justice Foundation (USJF), filed a brief in July. It said the videotape "captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000."
Paul is appealing a California Superior Court ruling that dismissed Hillary Clinton from an earlier lawsuit under a statute that protects politicians from harassing or frivolous lawsuits. Paul's legal team argues the statute does not apply to a political figure who violates the law.
This harks back to Galagate, an August 2000 Hollywood event that was titled the "Bill Clinton Farewell Tribute" but was in fact a fund raiser for Hillary and featured performances by Cher, Diana Ross and Melissa Etheridge. It took in $1.5 million for Hillary's Senate campaign.
After failing to properly report the money raised, Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen, was accused of lying to the FEC and the Clinton Senate campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the FEC.
Paul said:
"Everything I complained about in 2001, and she denied, was supported in the Rosen trial and the FEC. Only her direct knowledge continues to be denied, and the tape contradicts that. Hillary's obstruction is worse than Nixon's obstruction in Watergate."
For the last six years,Clinton's staff has denied that she played a role in planning the fundraiser. Yet the videotape shows Paul and two others speaking with Hillary Clinton on speaker phone as she expresses enthusiasm about the event and telling Paul to contact her aide any time to further plan details.
In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.
"I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton. I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."
(Hillary, the 'smartest woman on earth' apparently has convenient memory lapses)
If Clinton helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to her Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee, "New York Senate 2000."
If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be more than a thousand times the legal limit for an individual donation. Knowingly soliciting an individual contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Be still my heart.
"The Clintons represent the worst in modern American politics: ruthless ambition over a desire to serve; preoccupation with political funding over a fair system; opportunism over principle; betrayal of any cause or policy over taking a stand; and a desperation to gain and keep office over any obligation to honor its responsibilities." -- Christopher Reed, in the Los Angles Times.
But there's more...
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment