ChristiansUnite Forums

'Smoking gun' video
indicts Hillary Clinton 
Shows her 'committing felony'
punishable by 5 years in prison

A business mogul who says he was Hillary Clinton's biggest donor in her 2000 Senate campaign is preparing to release a newly recovered videotape his lawyer calls "smoking-gun evidence" of the New York Democrat's commission of a series of felonies, each punishable by up to five years in prison.

Peter Franklin Paul, in a civil fraud suit filed against Bill and Hillary Clinton, claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton 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 fund-raiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Sen. Clinton has claimed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson that Paul gave no money to her campaign, and her supporters have denied she had any anything to do with coordinating the August 2000 event or soliciting contributions directly from donors. Doing so would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contribution to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Furthermore, knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Clinton's campaign has counted the more than $800,000 of in-kind contributions it reported in a 2006 amended FEC report for the Hollywood Gala as indirect, or "soft money," given to the New York Senate 2000 Committee, a state account that was run jointly by Clinton, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Party.

But the videotape, with clear audio of Sen. Clinton, documents her direct knowledge and involvement with Paul in producing the Hollywood fund-raiser and indicates she participated in the solicitation of the entertainers, whose in-kind contributions of their services would also constitute illegal contributions exceeding $25,000.

In the July 2000 tape, the senator also describes the role of a longtime aide as assisting in day-to-day involvement in preparation for the event as her liaison with Paul and his producers.

The aide's hands-on role is significant, because the law also implicates a candidate if any of his or her agents are involved in coordinating expenditures with a donor.

Paul has indicated plans to release the tape within 30 days as the focal point of the first-ever documentary on Sen. Clinton, featuring private videotape showing what he describes as illegal conduct by the senator. When the July 2000 tape is made public, concerned parties say they will demand an investigation of why it was withheld by government attorneys in New York.

Paul was ordered six years ago, when the investigations began, to turn over a large volume of videotapes that were routinely made to document meetings in his office. But the videotape of the phone call in 2000 has never been used as evidence, despite its relevance to the key question of Sen. Clinton's involvement in the Hollywood fund-raiser.

Prior to Paul's knowledge that the tape still existed, his attorney Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation filed a brief in the civil lawsuit alleging Clinton's violation of a federal code that carries a possible five-year prison sentence.

Wilson, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton's actions violated not only the $2,000 limit but Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."

The Clintons' longtime attorney, David Kendall, has declined comment on the case, saying only to WND regarding the felony assertion, "Any such allegation is totally false and totally unsupported."

Wilson, armed with the new video evidence, will introduce it in Paul's case against the Clintons, as well as in a series of complaints to various government bodies

Paul is appealing an April 7, 2006, decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz granting Sen. Clinton her motion to be dismissed from the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns.

Paul's attorneys have argued Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.

In his April 2006 ruling, Munoz scheduled a trial to begin March 27 this year, but it was delayed when in September he ruled the discovery process – which likely would require the former president and his wife to testify under oath – could not proceed until the anti-SLAPP appeal is resolved.

'Listening to a felony'

Wilson told WND yesterday the case against Sen. Clinton is that she "perpetuated the fraud," collaborating with her husband to make Paul believe the former president was serious about working with Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, as a rainmaker after leaving the White House.

The attorney said the new videotape evidence is damning.

"I don't know how you escape the conclusion that you are listening to a felony," Wilson said.

Clinton, she said, "seemed to convince the FEC that she had no involvement, and this shows that was a big lie. She was directly involved in the planning and coordination of this event."

In May 2005, Sen. Clinton's former top fund-raising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports regarding the event that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Sen. Clinton's campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.

In January 2006, responding to Paul's complaint, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to New York Senate 2000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from Paul.

In the taped phone conversation, Wilson points out, Clinton shows enthusiasm for her friendship with Paul and business partner Stan Lee, creator of Spiderman, and says "how wonderful" Paul is for all of his efforts on her behalf.

"But when it came time for her to be publicly affiliated with him, she wouldn't even own up to him contributing to her campaign," Wilson said.

Sen. Clinton suddenly made a public break with Paul just days after the gala when the Washington Post splashed reports of Paul's 1970s criminal convictions in a story that accused the senator of being soft on crime. While the senator publicly distanced herself, Paul says she remained in close contact to convince him that no matter what she said publicly, their understanding was still in place and he should continue to give money to her campaign secretly.

Paul contends the Clintons were fully aware of his past legal problems, pointing out he was vetted more than eight times by the Secret Service. He currently awaits sentencing after pleading guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks and for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value.

The collapse of his company, he says, was a direct result of President Clinton reneging on the deal.

Paul argues federal Judge Gary Feess ruled in his dismissal of a civil lawsuit brought by Stan Lee Media against him and Merrill Lynch in July 2003 that the "collapse of the margin scheme did not cause SLM's stock to decline in value" and therefore was not responsible for the demise of the company. Paul says the judge's ruling supports his case, by determining it was the financial condition of the company that caused the collapse. The purpose of the margin scheme, the judge determined, was to benefit Stan Lee Media.

Hillary suggests tapping wages
Clinton says income could be garnisheed if people refuse to buy health insurance

Will Hillary Clinton as president tap into workers' wages to achieve her goal of health insurance for all Americans?

The possibility exists as the candidate was pressed on the matter during a television interview today.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program, the Democratic senator from New York said she might be willing to have wages garnisheed if people refuse to buy health insurance.

"I think universal health care is a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely gonna do everything I can to achieve that," Clinton said. "I think there are a number of mechanisms" possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Host George Stephanapolous asked Clinton specifically about garnisheeing wages at least three times before she made the admission.

"What we've got to do is have shared responsibility. Everybody has to pay something, but obviously on a sliding scale," Clinton said. "I think you can automatically enroll people, and you will then say, 'You've got to be part of this.'"

"If you don't start with universal health care, if you don't say everybody's going to be in the system, we'll never get there," she added.

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford coverage but refuse to purchase it, increasing the financial pressure on hospitals. She indicated her plan "will be affordable for everyone" because she'd limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."

Her agenda is definitely clear. A traitor and an extreme danger to all that the U.S. has ever stood for. Freedom is on it's last legs.

Hillary's crying campaign: The tears of a clown

When the campaign trail gets tough, Hillary turns on the public waterworks. She has recently cried three times to gain voter sympathy.

Is this emotional behavior acceptable for a potential leader? And is crying a tactic she plans to use as president in negotiations with foreign tyrants?

When freelance photographer Marianna Young asked Hillary how she deals with the stress of running for the presidency during the New Hampshire primaries, Hillary broke down.

"I just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said with a pathetically contrived tremble.

Attempting to shatter her ice-queen reputation and reveal a never-before-seen soft side, she said her heart was full and tried desperately to appeal to feminist proclivities of American women. "I found my own voice," she exclaimed triumphantly.

Maybe Hillary is simply exhausted from years of riding Bill's coattails and lurking in the shadows of his popularity. "Why won't the American public embrace me, too?" she wonders. Just the thought of being a political bridesmaid – and never a bride – brings the senator emotional distress.

Her teary-eyed frustration with American voters is glaringly obvious. Hillary can't fathom why so many hard-working citizens just won't buy into the idea that they need her "leadership" and socialistic health care, so she manipulates public sympathy and turns the tables by playing female victim of Obama and the media.

In an interview on "Access Hollywood," Hillary complained, "If you get too emotional, that undercuts you. A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it's a different kind of dynamic."

Perhaps she nailed it when she said expectations are different for women. But rather than hinder her campaign, the media frenzied around her first tear-jerking performance and boosted her popularity.

Does anyone honestly think crying would have done the same for Barack Obama or any of the GOP candidates?

(Column continues below)

As for the freelance photographer who asked Hillary the empathetic question about her courage in dealing with campaign stress – she voted for Obama in the New Hampshire primary.

According to an ABC News report, Young explained her choice: "I went to see Hillary. I was undecided, and I was moved by her response to me. We saw 10 seconds of Hillary, the caring woman.

"But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again," she said. "And the woman that I noticed for 10 seconds was gone."

It was a brilliant strategy, though unconvincing performance, on Hillary's part.

Feb. 4, when political talking heads took focus off of her and Obama's popularity was surging, Hillary turned on the waterworks – again. In a third act, crocodile tears began flowing Saturday as well.

It is an all-too-familiar routine: Her lip shakes, her chin trembles, her eyes glisten with tears and the media responds favorably.

Even Miss Sunshine Breck himself, Sen. John Edwards, criticized her appeals for public sympathy by saying he believes we need someone slightly tougher in office (this coming from someone who used his wife's illness and son's death to cash in on voter compassion).

In an extraordinarily rare departure from the norm, Edwards is absolutely right. If Sen. Clinton wants to play with the big boys and be respected by foreign leaders, she had better drop the crying act.

Here's a better idea: Hillary, forget 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Your true calling lies in a starring role on a daytime soap opera.

Sniff....sniff....sniff..... is that the smell of socialism I smell?


If it smell like socialism

tastes like socialism

looks like socialism

And if it squishes between your toes like socialism


then it must be socialism.....either that or the dog left you a present in the yard.

EEEWWWW MAJOR YUCK!

NO TASTING! MUST SCRUB, SCRUB, SCRUB IT AWAY! MUST DISINFECT!

Air Freshener anyone?

ROFL....   ;D  ;D  ;D
Was hoping that would get someone

Clintons' next:
Trial for fraud
Judge setting date, testimony
to include ex-prez, senator

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton's longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul.  But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.

Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.

The Clintons, a horror film that never ends
March 9, 2008

Andrew Sullivan

It’s alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover’s tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races – one by a mere 3% – against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.

Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.

The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.

Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).

Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).

Consider: the Clintons could have prepared for primaries and caucuses after February 5 – so-called Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their presidential nomination vote – as any careful candidate would. They chose not to do any of these things. Not because they are incompetent. But because they live to risk.

Politics is also their life. They know nothing else. Most halfway normal people in politics could at some point walk away. Reagan seemed happy to. Not the Clintons. In the words of the American-based British writer Christo-pher Hitchens, these are the kind of people who never want the meeting to end. Hillary Clinton will never concede the race so long as there is even the faintest chance that she can somehow win.

They endure all sorts of humiliation – remember the taped Clinton deposition in the Ken Starr investigation (in which Clinton admitted to the inquiry headed by the far-right prosecutor that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky)? Hillary’s dismissal of the Lewinsky matter as an invention of the right-wing conspiracy? – because they know no other way to live. They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washing-ton Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.

The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

One is reminded of the words of Bob Dylan: “And here I sit so patiently / Waiting to find out what price / You have to pay to get out of / Going through all these things twice.”

The Clintons, a horror film that never ends (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece)

Senator Clinton: I want to be first U.S. president to march in gay pride parade

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, does not think marching in a so-called "gay-pride parade" is a proper venue for the president of the United States.

However, one presidential candidate has made a pledge to do just that – Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York). She says that Clinton made her pledge in the Washington Blade – a Washington newspaper serving the homosexual community. "...Really now! We've seen these gay pride parades in San Francisco and elsewhere," exclaims Donnelly. "Is this really an appropriate role for the President or the Commander in Chief of our armed forces? I don't think so..."

According to Donnelly, there is virtually no difference between Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) when it comes to advancing the gay and lesbian agenda. Obama recently wrote an open letter to the homosexual community pledging to end the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, as well as repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Donnelly says both Clinton and Obama would force the homosexual agenda on American citizens by force of law.

Sounds almost like another Democratic family we still deal with..... The Kennedy's

Interesting that once one family finally starts to die out (not literally...well maybe)...that another one comes to fill the shoes for the Democratic party....almost makes you wonder if their agenda is really one of a monarchy.

Records reveal 'Co-President Hillary'
'She was meeting with Cabinet level officials on a daily basis'

The thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton's documents generated while the New York senator was first lady during husband Bill Clinton's presidency reveal a sort of "Co-President Hillary," according to the chief of Judicial Watch, the organization that filed a lawsuit to obtain their release.

About 11,000 pages of Mrs. Clinton's daily schedules were released today by the National Archives and Records Administration, and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News a quick overview revealed some interested activities.

"It looks like she was co-president, involved with Cabinet-level meetings," he told the network. "She was meeting with Cabinet-level officials on a daily basis."

He also said it appeared there was inappropriate campaign fundraising going on in the Clinton White House, based on a "short review" of those documents.

"The only reason there were no prosecutions," he said, "was the Clintons were running the Justice Department."

He also said it appeared that shortly after Clinton supporter Vincent Foster reportedly committed suicide, Mrs. Clinton had ordered her staff to clean out his office, interfering with what could have been the scene of a crime.

Nearly half – 4,800 – of the pages have parts blacked out, and archivists said that was done to protect the privacy of third parties who were mentioned in Mrs. Clintons paperwork.

The Associated Press reported its own review of the documents showed her "tackling health care reform out of the gate, with a meeting three days after her husband's inauguration and many more as the year went on." Her plan to create a national health care administration eventually failed.

The AP also noted Mrs. Clinton helped her husband "win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement," which she now is criticizing.

Judicial Watch has posted links to the thousands of pages on its website.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cl-hrc-calendars


"The Clintons have slow-pedaled this process but were unsuccessful in delaying the document release any further," Fitton said earlier. "However, this does not put an end to Judicial Watch's pursuit of Hillary's White House records, including her telephone logs."

Archives officials notified Judicial Watch on March 1 of their plans to start releasing documents after, "The Clinton Presidential Library … completed its exacting page-by-page, line-by-line review of approximately 10,000 of the 30,000 pages of records potentially responsive to [Judicial Watch's] April 5, 2006 Freedom of Information Act request…"

In a court filing, the National Archives said, "The Library has notified the presidential representatives of the records scheduled for disclosure and anticipates that it will produce those records to plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. in advance of the March 20, 2008 hearing."

However, the government entity also suggested it would take "one to two years" to start processing the requested papers documenting Hillary Clinton's telephone logs.

"It would be an injustice to force the American people to wait 'one to two years' for the telephone logs of a candidate for the presidency. We are asking the court to force the National Archives to comply with the law and release these records as soon as possible," said Fitton.

The organization filed a new court brief earlier this week regarding the telephone logs seeking limited discovery about the handling of records requests, and also is seeking access to records related to the National Task Force on National Health Care Reform."

Previously released documents on which WND has reported have revealed that even insiders working on Mrs. Clinton's broad, unprecedented, sweeping, centralized program to take over health care in the United States doubted the program back in the 1990s.

A June 18, 1993, internal memo from her own task force came from an anonymous staffer known only as P.S., who wrote, "I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy. ... Is the public really ready for this? ... None of us know whether we can make it work well or at all. ..."

Judicial Watch, a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan education foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, is seeking access to Hillary Clinton's documents because of the revelations they are expected to contain about her work as First Lady in the Clinton White House, and the possible impact of those precedents if she succeeds in her bid of the Oval Office this year.

Earlier documentation that was released revealed a confidential memo from Sen. Jay Rockefeller to Mrs. Clinton characterizing her health care task force as a "secret cabal of Washington policy 'wonks'" that was responsible for "choking off information" from the public.

His suggestion was that Mrs. Clinton "use classic opposition research" to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton administration from task force deliberations and to "expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists" to deflect criticism. Rockefeller also suggested news organizations "are anxious and willing to receive guidance on how to time and shape their coverage."

Those documents were obtained by Judicial Watch from the approximately 13,000 documents made publicly available by the Clinton Library. The National Archives admits there may be an additional 3 million textual records, 2,884 pages of electronic records, 1,021 photographs, 3 videotapes and 3 audiotapes related to the health care task force that are being withheld indefinitely from the public.

"These documents paint a disturbing picture of how Hillary Clinton and the Clinton administration approached health care reform – secrecy, smears, and the misuse of government computers to track private and political information on citizens," Fitton said at the time. "There are millions more documents that the Library has yet to release. The Clintons continue to play games and pretend they have nothing to do with this delay. The Clintons should get out of the way and authorize the release of these records now."

Photo refutes Hillary
'sniper fire' account
Image of Bosnia ceremony contradicts
story used to boost foreign policy cred

 Sen. Hillary Clinton has used a story of arriving in Bosnia under sniper fire to bolster her foreign policy bona fides, but the Washington Post retrieved a photo showing that upon landing, she actually was greeted in a customary tarmac ceremony, complete with a kiss for a native child.

Clinton has declared on the campaign trail that a welcoming ceremony for the March 25, 1996, arrival in Tuzla was canceled, and she had to run from the airplane into an airport building for safety. The then-first lady's traveling party included 15-year-old daughter Chelsea, the comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow.

"I remember landing under sniper fire," Clinton recounted. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But the Post's Michael Dobbs says that "as a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla."

Dobbs's report in the Post's "Fact Checker" column has been noted by weblogs Newsbusters and HotAir.com but virtually ignored by mainstream media.

"Had Hillary Clinton's plane come 'under sniper fire' in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now," Dobbs writes.

He pointed out that numerous reporters, including the Post's John Pomfret, covered Clinton's trip, and a review of nearly 100 news accounts of their visit "shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the first lady."

Pomfret declared, "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened,".

Dobbs says Clinton and her entourage were greeted by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials, and an 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English.

The actor Sinbad had a different account of the trip than Clinton, telling the Post's "Sleuth" column Monday the "scariest" part was worrying about whether "we eat here or at the next place."

Clinton defended her story on the campaign trail this week and dismissed the actor's contention, saying, "Sinbad is a comedian."

Clinton repeated the Bosnia story, saying she remembers "landing under sniper fire" and that "we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Hillary camp in lockdown over Bosnia flap
Seeking to play down news former first lady gave false account

The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is seeking to play down news that the former first lady gave an incorrect account of landing in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire, and refused to answer additional questions about a flap that could hurt her chances of catching Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination.

“We’ve said all we’re going to say on that,” said Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer on a Tuesday morning conference call with reporters.

A video from CBS News had shown that Clinton’s version of having come under sniper fire was not correct. Her campaign chalked up the discrepancy between her account and the video as a case of Clinton misspeaking.

The Obama campaign seized on the story when it was splashed across the CBS website Monday, with spokesman Tommy Vietor saying it is “part of a troubling pattern of Sen. Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience.”

Top Clinton surrogates also sought to play down the story, which could prove to be harmful to the former first lady’s chances.

Hillary Was Fired From Congressional Job for Unethical Behavior.

We’ve all kinda built a calouse up on the uncountable lies she’s been caught in. Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, may just be adding the garnish to her plate. How about a little unethical behavior for a cherry on top?


Wow! Thats some harsh fightin words. Will they stick? I mean, it isn’t news that she is a liar. Well, what exactly was it she did? Say goodbye to any true-hearted sincere liberal support. You say you wanna change the Constitution, well ya know….

How about trying to deny the right to counsel for Nixon?


This is a big deal, and hopefully the media will not ignore it. If this gets legs, Hillary is done, in my opinion. Its pretty damning stuff and will be fun to watch her spin on it.

As much as I would love to see it....I would still rather have her than Obama.  At least if I know I have a liar and a cheat in office...I know how to control them....a closet Islamist...that is a bird of a different feather....and one that would create other problems abroad as well.  With Hellary we just keep her shut up so she does not have to talk to anyone....so no promises made...  :)

This is a very sad and strange election. WEIRD might be a better term for this election.

The choices are limited, and I guess there could be further developments before the election. At this point, I would simply say that I can't vote for Obama or Clinton - NO WAY! If McCain is the only other choice, I guess that I'll have to vote for him.

Bill Clinton backed down Friday after reviving his wife’s exaggerated account of her trip to Bosnia 12 years ago.

Hillary Clinton acknowledged late last month that she had misspoken when she said on more than one occasion that she had landed under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. The controversy surrounding the story had died down until the former president brought it back Thursday when he tried to defend his wife’s mistake.

Clinton accused the media of treating his wife like “she’d robbed a bank” for confusing the facts. But in retelling the story, the former president added his own inaccuracies to the account.

On Friday, Bill Clinton said he would no longer talk about the Bosnia trip.

“Hillary called me and said, ‘You don’t remember this, you weren’t there. Let me handle it.’ And I said ‘Yes ma’am,’” the former president said as he visited the scene of a campaign office that burned down in Terre Haute, Ind.

Hillary Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said in a statement: “Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her, but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful had repeatedly described a harrowing scene in Tuzla, Bosnia, in which she and her daughter, Chelsea, had to run for cover as soon as they landed for a visit in 1996. But video footage from that day showed a peaceful reception during which an 8-year-old girl greeted the smiling first lady.

Hillary Clinton has acknowledged she got the facts wrong in retelling the tale. (emphasis mine.)

But her husband said Thursday, “There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995.”

“Did y’all see all that? Oh, they blew it up,” the former president continued. “Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark — who was there making peace where we’d lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way — both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front.

“Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony.

“And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you would have thought, you know, that she’d robbed a bank the way they all carried on about this,” he said.

But Hillary Clinton didn’t make the sniper fire claim “one time late at night when she was exhausted.” She told the story several times, including during prepared remarks on foreign policy delivered the morning of March 17.

It’s also not true that she “immediately apologized for it.” Clinton has never apologized and only acknowledged that she “misspoke” a week after the March 17 speech, after the video of her peaceful tarmac reception emerged.

It’s also not true that she was the “first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone” — a claim Hillary Clinton has also made when talking about the trip. Pat Nixon traveled to Saigon during the Vietnam war, and Barbara Bush went to Saudi Arabia two months before the launching of Desert Storm. The trip also was not in 1995, but 1996.

Bill Clinton attempted to smooth things over Friday.

“The fundamental fact is she went there, everyone that flew around with her … had Apache helicopters guarding them and there was some risk, of course,” he said. “And she did a good job, and she did a good job for the troops, but she is right. I wasn’t there. I don’t remember the facts right either.”

In pledging not to tackle the Bosnia story any more, he appeared to be hearkening back to advice he gave himself shortly after Super Tuesday in February, when he was taking heat for playing an aggressive role in the campaign.

“I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her because I was president,” Clinton said in an interview with NBC affiliate WCSH-TV as he was campaigning in Portland, Maine. “I have to let her defend herself or have someone else defend her.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Is there a difference in "getting the facts wrong" and just plain ol' lying among the Clintons?  Must be.

In Christ,
Grammyluv

Sister Yvette, we might have a problem with this. When someone take a polygraph test, one of the first things they must do is establish known points of TRUTH for a reference. This brings up the hard question:  Do we have any known points of TRUTH to use as a reference for either of the Clintons? YES - I'm serious.

Hillary jumps to 20-point lead in Pennsylvania
Obama had drawn even with New York Democrat just 1 week ago

A new poll of likely voters in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary shows Sen. Hillary Clinton skyrocketing from a deadlock to a 20-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in just one week.

An American Research Group survey April 5-6 had the candidates in a 45-45 tie. But the group's latest polling, April 11-13, has Clinton leading 57-37.

Obama has been on the defensive since the reporting of a speech to wealthy donors in San Francisco one week ago in which he suggested working class people "cling to guns and religion" because they're bitter about their economic circumstances.

Obama had closed the gap with Clinton Pennsylvania after a March 26-27 American Research Group survey had her in a 51-39 lead.

The polling group noted it found 23 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say excessive exposure to Obama's advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

The survey also indicated that, in the primary, 10 percent of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Clinton and 24 percent would never vote for Obama.

Clinton leads Obama 48 percent to 44 percent among men, American Research found. Among women, Clinton leads 64 percent to 31 percent.

Clinton leads 64-29 percent among white voters, and Obama leads 79-18 percent among African American voters.

Among voters age 18 to 49, Clinton has a 52-43 lead. She has a bigger margin among voters 50 and older, 62-31.

Dick Morris: Hillary has her own terrorist problem
Ex-Clinton adviser sees 'skeletons' that have not been fully investigated

With the media focus this week on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with the notorious Weatherman Underground figure William Ayers, voters should be reminded of Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to terrorists, says political analyst and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris.

Clinton has argued Obama would make a more vulnerable general election candidate because opposition researchers are just beginning to vet his past political associations, but Morris told WND he believes Hillary is wrong when she maintains all her "baggage" has been "rummaged through for years."

Morris insists Clinton has plenty of radical political skeletons in her closet that have not been fully investigated.

"In the 1980s, Hillary served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave a grant to the PLO, then designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group," Morris noted.

In 1996, he added, Clinton organized a White House conference for the American Muslim Alliance.

Clinton took a $50,000 donation from the Alliance when she ran for the Senate and tried to hide it on her forms by calling it the 'American Museum Alliance, Morris said.

"Then, when it was discovered, she hesitated until a week before the election and then returned the money," he explained. "By the time Hillary gave it back, she had forsworn use of soft money in the campaign, so the donation had lost its usefulness in any event."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal Nov. 3, 2000, terrorism expert Steven Emerson identified the American Muslim Alliance as "an anti-Israeli group whose leaders have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad."

Emerson objected to Clinton's attempt to distance herself from wrongdoing, instead of admitting she had courted radical Islamic groups such as the American Muslim Alliance. Clinton, he said, used the White House to hold conferences so she could solicit campaign contributions for her up-coming New York Senate race.

Emerson quoted Clinton saying, "I have been part of some of those events. I have hosted some of them."

Yet, Emerson said, she tried to position her actions "as part of the administration's efforts to open lines of communication and build bridges with Muslim Americans and Muslim leaders from all over the world."

Emerson asked, "What have these groups done since Mrs. Clinton began reaching out to them?"

He answered by documenting a long list of instances in which Islamic groups invited to the White House by Clinton had held radical anti-Israel rallies, speeches and public meetings.

Among the examples cited by Emerson was a Sept. 16, 2000, Washington rally sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Muslim Council and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

At the rally, the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, declared: "[The Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem,' we say to them 'next year to all of Palestine!'"

In an article entitled "Hillary's Terrorist Ties," written to appear on his website, Morris credits the work of WND author Aaron Klein, who in his book "Schmoozing with Terrorists" documents "how most of the Hamas leaders are fulsome in their praise of Hillary and outspoken in their hopes for their victory."

"Clearly, Barack Obama should not have stayed in Reverend Wright's church and his campaign should not maintain a 'friendly' relationship with William Ayers," Morris asserted. "But what about Hillary hosting a terror-supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 campaign contribution from that group? These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers."

Ayers is the 1960s Weather Underground radical who participated in bombing New York City's police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

Ayers served with Obama on the board of the Chicago-based Woods Foundation when the group provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network. The group's founder, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who was associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department.

In Wednesday's presidential debate in Philadelphia, ABC's George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama about his association with Ayers.

Obama replied, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

Obama argued, "And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make sense, George."

WHAT??  Dishonesty in politics?!  Tell me it isn't so!  (http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/Abaddon_album/emotes/icon_surprised_smiley.jpg)

Hillary: I'm prepared
to 'totally obliterate' Iran
Says she would respond if Tehran
attacks Israel with nuclear weapons

As Pennsylvania voters go to the polls in a primary widely regarded as do-or-die for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, the New York Democrat apparently is positioning herself to the right of some Republicans, vowing that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, she would respond in kind against Tehran, with the ability to "totally obliterate them."

Clinton's remarks came during an interview airing tomorrow morning on the ABC News show, "Good Morning America."

ABC's Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, according to the network.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

On the floor of the Senate on Feb. 14, 2007, Clinton stated, "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority."

As WND reported, Clinton offered a new defense doctrine during the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia last week that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with nuclear weapons.

Her statement largely went unnoticed, pointed out political consultant and pundit Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Co-moderator George Stephanopoulos, who asked the question, was "too focused on Obama's wearing or not wearing a flag pin in his lapel," Morris said.

Here's what Clinton said: "We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup."

Morris suggest the sweeping new defense doctrine offered by Clinton is "perhaps influenced by her husband's $15 million paycheck from Dubai or the $10 million the Saudi monarchy gave to his library."

In a column yesterday in the New York Post, Morris said "no American president has ever made so sweeping a commitment in the region. Hillary certainly appears willing to break new ground"

Morris concluded: "If there is one real warmonger in this race, it is Hillary Clinton, who is now willing to risk our cities to save some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East."

How Enron Worked the President

  Are You Ready?

How Enron Worked the President!


(This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.)

1.      Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the

    Vice president in the Oval Office.

2.  Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.

3.  It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

4.  The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.

5. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and

    Even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

6. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for

     More than $600 million in just one transaction.

Scandalous!!


BUT...the president under whom al l this happ ened WASN'T George W. Bush.



SURPRISE!

It was President Bill Clinton!

And do you think Hillary didn't know?


ARE WE REALLY READY FOR MRS. CLINTON?


Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
--

Here's a good mugshot:     ;D


   

Clinton camp denies she's ready to concede
Sources tell AP ex-first lady will acknowledge Obama has enough delegates

Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials told the Associated Press, a move that would effectively end her bid to be the nation's first female president.

The report, which cited two campaign sources, said the former first lady would stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City, but that for all intents and purposes the campaign was over.

The campaign quickly reacted to the report, saying that the AP report was incorrect and that Clinton would not concede the nomination tonight.

Harold Ickes, a top campaign official, said that Clinton would not drop out of the race. Asked on MSNBC what she would say if, after primaries in Montana and South Dakota, Obama had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, he replied, "She will say what she will say when she says it."

Earlier on the TODAY show, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

The outcome could come by the end of the day with some choreography by the party's superdelegates. The party insiders were lining up behind Obama at a rate that could seal the nomination once results are in from Montana and South Dakota — or even before.

Two more superdelegates endorsed him Tuesday morning, from Michigan and Missouri, leaving him just 40 delegates short of the 2,118 needed to put him over the top and make him the nation's first black presidential nominee from a major party.

Challenge unlikely
Clinton, once seen as a sure bet in her historic quest to become the first female president, was still pressing the superdelegates to support her fading candidacy. But McAuliffe indicated she was not inclined to drag out a dispute over delegates from the unsanctioned Michigan primary despite feeling shortchanged by a weekend compromise by the party's rules committee that she could still appeal to a higher level.

"I don't think she's going to go to the credentials committee," he said on NBC's "Today" show. Taking the matter to that committee would essentially extend the dispute into the convention and deny Democrats the unity they sorely want to achieve against Republican John McCain.

However, the campaign was upset that the AP report came out as voters were still going to the polls.

Meantime, seeing the cards fall into place for his November rival, McCain planned a prime time speech Tuesday night in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, La., in what is essentially a kickoff of the fall campaign.

Big endorsement
On Tuesday, House Majority Whip and unpledged delegate James Clyburn told the TODAY show that he was throwing his support behind Obama.

"I believe the nomination of Senator Obama is our party's best chance for victory in November, and our nation's best hope for much needed change," the South Carolina representative said.

"Once the last votes are cast, then it's in everybody's interest to resolve this quickly so we can pivot," he added.

Obama has said there were a lot of superdelegates who have been private supporters of his but wanted to respect the process by not endorsing until the final primaries were done.

"We're still working the phones and we're still talking to people ... so we'll certainly have to wait until a little later tonight to see what the final tally is, but we certainly feel good waking up this morning," Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman, told CNN on Tuesday.

In a defiant shot across the GOP bow, Obama, who returned to hometown Chicago late Monday, planned to hold his wrap-up rally in St. Paul, Minn., at the arena that will be the site of the Republican National Convention in September.

Clinton rally in NYC
Clinton returned to New York, the state she represents in the Senate, planning an end-of-primary evening rally in Manhattan after a grueling campaign finale as she pushed through South Dakota on Monday.

"I'm just very grateful we kept this campaign going until South Dakota would have the last word," she said at a restaurant in Rapid City in one of her final campaign stops. Polls suggested Obama would win both South Dakota and Montana.

She still sounded buoyant. Her biggest booster and most tireless campaigner, husband Bill Clinton, didn't. "This may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind," the former president said somberly as he stumped for her in South Dakota.

Ahead of Tuesday's concluding primaries, Obama sought to set the stage for reconciliation, praising Clinton's endurance and determination and offering to meet with her — on her terms — "once the dust settles" from their race.

"The sooner we can bring the party together, the sooner we can start focusing on McCain in November," Obama told reporters in Michigan. He said he spoke with Clinton on Sunday when he called to congratulate her on winning the Puerto Rico primary, most likely her last hurrah.

That fueled speculation for a "dream ticket" in which Clinton would become Obama's running mate — but neither camp was suggesting that was much of a possibility.

In the AP interview, Obama was asked when he would start looking for a running mate.

"The day after I have gotten that last delegate needed to officially claim the nomination, I'll start thinking about vice presidential nominees," he said. "It's a very important decision, and it's one where I'm going to have to take some time."

I hope she doesn't.  It'll take all of the entertainment out of the race!

Hey Brother!  Been missin' ya!  ??? :D

I'm not surprised.  Are you surprised?

Saudi Arabia Among Biggest Donors to Clinton Foundation
Bill Clinton's foundation disclosed the names of its 205,000 donors on a Web site Thursday, ending a decade of resistance to identifying the sources of its money.

Former President Bill Clinton's foundation has raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments that his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton may end up negotiating with as the next secretary of state.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit created by the former president to finance his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts to reduce poverty and treat AIDS. Other foreign government givers include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica. The Dutch national lottery gave $5 million to $10 million.

The Blackwater Training Center donated $10,001 to $25,000. The State Department -- to be led by Hillary Clinton if she is confirmed -- will have to decide next year whether to renew Blackwater Worldwide's contract to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. Five Blackwater guards have been indicted by a U.S. grand jury on manslaughter and weapons charges stemming from a September 2007 firefight in Baghdad's Nisoor Square in which 17 Iraqis died.

The foundation disclosed the names of its 205,000 donors on a Web site Thursday, ending a decade of resistance to identifying the sources of its money. While the list is heavy with international business leaders and billionaires, some 12,000 donors gave $10 or less.

Clinton agreed to release the information after concerns emerged that his extensive international fundraising and business deals could conflict with America's interests if his wife became Obama's top diplomat. The foundation has insisted for years that it was under no legal obligation to identify its contributors, contending that many expected confidentiality when they donated.

The list also underscores ties between the Clintons and India, a connection that could complicate diplomatic perceptions of whether Hillary Clinton can be a neutral broker between India and neighbor Pakistan in a region where President-elect Barack Obama will face an early test of his foreign policy leadership.

The former president did not release specific totals for each donor, providing only ranges of giving. Nor did he identify individual contributors' occupations or countries of residence.

Donors gave Clinton's foundation at least $492 million from its inception in 1997 through last year, according to the most recent figures available.

After negotiations with Obama's transition team, Clinton promised to reveal the contributors, submit future foundation activities and paid speeches to an ethics review, step away from the day-to-day operation of his annual charitable conference and inform the State Department about new sources of income and speeches.

Representatives of the foundation, including CEO Bruce Lindsay and attorney Cheryl Mills, and aides to Hillary Clinton met privately Wednesday with staff of incoming Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry of Massachusetts and ranking Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana to discuss the foundation's activities and review a memorandum of understanding drawn up by the Clinton and Obama teams.

The Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings and vote on Hillary Clinton's nomination before sending it to the full Senate. Shortly after Obama tapped Clinton, Lugar said he would support her, though he said there would still be "legitimate questions" raised about the former president's extensive international involvement.

"I don't know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this -- who has such cosmic ties," Lugar said.

Some of the donors have extensive ties to Indian interests that could prove troubling to Pakistan. Tensions between the two nuclear nations are high since last month's deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Amar Singh, a donor in the $1 million to $5 million category, is an Indian politician who played host to Bill Clinton on a visit to India in 2005 and met Hillary Clinton in New York in September to discuss an India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement.

Also in that giving category was Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, a leading supplier of wind turbines. Its chairman is Tulsi R. Tanti, one of India's wealthiest executives. Tanti announced plans at Clinton's Global Initiative meeting earlier this year for a $5 billion project to develop environmentally friendly power generation in India and China.

Two other Indian interests gave between $500,000 and $1 million each:

--The Confederation of Indian Industry, an industrial trade association.

--Dave Katragadda, an Indian capital manager with holdings in media and entertainment, technology, health care and financial services.

Other foreign governments also contributed heavily to the foundation.

--AUSAID, the Australian government's overseas aid program, and COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico, a Dominican Republic government agency formed to fight AIDS, each gave $10 million to $25 million.

--Norway gave $5 million to $10 million.

--Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Oman gave $1 million to $5 million each.

--The government of Jamaica and Italy's Ministry for Environment and Territory gave $50,000 to $100,000 each.

--The biggest donations -- more than $25 million each -- came from two donors.

They are the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, a London-based philanthropic organization founded by hedge fund manager Chris Hohn and his wife Jamie Cooper-Hohn and dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India; and UNITAID, an international drug purchase organization formed by Brazil, France, Chile, Norway and Britain to help provide care for HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis patients in countries with high disease rates.

The foundation's donor list is heavy with overseas business interests.

--Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid gave $1 million to $5 million.

--Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation each gave $1 million to $5 million, as did the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office.

--The Swedish Postcode Lottery gave $500,000 to $1 million.

--China Overseas Real Estate Development and the U.S. Islamic World Conference gave $250,000 to $500,000 apiece.

--The No. 4 person on the Forbes billionaire list, Lakshmi Mittal, the chief executive of international steel company ArcelorMittal, gave $1 million to $5 million. Mittal is a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan, Goldman Sachs' board of directors and the World Economic Forum's International Business Council, according to the biography on his corporate Web site.

cont.

cont.

Among other $1 million to $5 million donors:

--Harold Snyder, director for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the largest drug company in Israel. His son, Jay T. Snyder, serves on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, which oversees State Department activities, and served as a senior U.S. adviser to the United Nations, where he worked on international trade and poverty. Jay Snyder donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation.

--No. 97 on the Forbes billionaire list, Ethiopian-Saudi business tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi.

--Issam Fares, a former deputy prime minister of Lebanon.

--Mala Gaonkar Haarman, a partner and managing director at the private investment partnership Lone Pine Capital.

--Lukas Lundin, chairman of oil, gas and mining businesses including Tanganyika Oil Company Ltd., an international oil and gas exploration and production company with interests in Syria, and Vostok Nafta Investment Ltd., an investment company that focuses on Russia and other former Soviet republics.

--Victor Pinchuk, son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine. Clinton spoke in 2007 at an annual meeting of Yalta European Strategy, a group Pinchuk founded to promote Ukraine joining the European Union.

The top ranks of Clinton's donor list are heavy with longtime Democratic givers, including some who are notable for their staunch support of Israel.

--TV producer Haim Saban and his family foundation, who donated between $5 million and $10 million, splits his time between homes in Israel and California. "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel," he told The New York Times in 2004.

--Slim-Fast diet foods tycoon S. Daniel Abraham, a donor of between $1 million and $5 million, has been a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which promotes Israel's interests before the U.S. government.

--The American Jewish Committee and the United Nations Foundation donated $100,000 to $250,000.

Clinton thanked his donors in a statement for being "steadfast partners in our work to impact the lives of so many around the world in measurable and meaningful ways."

According to the memorandum negotiated by the foundation and top Obama advisers, Bill Clinton agreed to publish the names of all past and future contributors to his foundation during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

The former president also agreed to step away from direct involvement in the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual charitable conference where businesses and many foreign governments pledge donations to help ameliorate AIDS, poverty and other social ills. He will continue serving as CGI's founding chairman but will not solicit money or sponsorships. The CGI will cease accepting foreign contributions and will not host events outside the United States.

Clinton started raising money for his library before leaving the White House. Over the years, the Clintons repeatedly refused to identify all the foundation donors, and continued to do so during Hillary Clinton's 2007-08 presidential campaign.

Names surfaced nonetheless. Several news organizations unearthed foreign-government donors, and in 2001, Bill Clinton turned over a list of 150 top foundation donors to a House committee investigating his pardon of fugitive businessman Marc Rich, whose ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave the library foundation at least $450,000.