Clinton

[Soldier4Christ]

'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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Brother Jerry]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

tastes like socialism

EEEWWWW MAJOR YUCK!

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

Air Freshener anyone?

[Brother Jerry]

ROFL....      
Was hoping that would get someone

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Shammu]

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Brother Jerry]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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?

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

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?

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon
representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.
Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor .

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.