posted on October 16, 2003 08:08:36 PM new
from au.news.yahoo.com
I remember when this story first broke....it was found out Hillary hadn't properly reported all her campaign contributions. Now this follow up.
Hollywood producer Peter Paul has sued former President Bill Clinton, and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, contending the former first couple got him in trouble with federal authorities by failing to report his $2 million in-kind contributions to her Senate campaign.
Judicial Watch, which has sued the Clintons several times over alleged campaign finance violations, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Paul, who is in a federal detention facility in New York after being extradited from Brazil last month to face federal fraud charges.
In December 2001, a Los Angeles judge dismissed a similar lawsuit in which Paul sought damages and the return of stocks and cash he had pledged to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Representatives for the former president and the senator could not immediately be reached for comment.
A federal grand jury indicted Paul in 2001 on charges he manipulated the price of stock in his company, Stan Lee Media Inc., before dumping it and bilking investors out of $25 million. If he is convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines.
Paul, 52, believes he owes his federal troubles at least in part to the Clintons, who pressured him to commit $2 million in cash and Stan Lee stock to produce a lavish Hollywood fund-raiser in 2000, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.
According to his lawsuit, Paul gained access to President Clinton by promising to contribute to his wife's Senate campaign.
At one point, the lawsuit said, he promised Bill Clinton a compensation package worth $16 million to sit on Stan Lee's board and act as a worldwide emissary for the company.
posted on October 16, 2003 08:19:27 PM new
So let me get this straight - this guy flees the country after manipulating stocks and bilking investors of 25 million dollars and the part you pick to bold is a claim of his that this is all the Clintons fault because they did not properly report a campaign donation? LOL!!!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
"“The Justice Department’s position that government officials can sell access for campaign contributions is contrary to the law and common sense. This is a case where a special counsel is required -- a Republican-controlled Justice Department is obviously conflicted in investigating Republican fundraising abuses. In fact, Republicans called for an independent counsel and specifically attacked the Reno Justice Department for the legal stance the Bush Justice Department now takes. Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This also illustrates the need for non-partisan watchdogs such as Judicial Watch to do the job the Justice Department won’t do – expose, investigate, and end government corruption,” added Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President. "
[ edited by miscreant on Oct 16, 2003 08:31 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2003 08:46:45 PM new
Something tells me this is not going to be a big issue for the Clintons.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on October 16, 2003 09:32:22 PM new
No, we expect the right wing whackos to do stuff like this. $70,000,000 and they were cleared. It seems it is the right wing whackos who are ruffled. At least Clinton respected his Mother.
A scam artist sues the Clintons through a sicko and you think you have scored points? Read some of my links, I promise you won't be condemned to hell for it.
[ edited by miscreant on Oct 16, 2003 09:33 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2003 11:06:49 PM new
Just got back from the theater. The second I saw the subject my "Lawsuit Larry" alarm went off big time. This makes my day. Thanks for the laugh Linda.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 17, 2003 05:30:32 AM new
Does that make you feel better there miscreant calling someone names that will never come here to defend themselves.... LOL
posted on October 17, 2003 05:51:50 AM newcalling someone names that will never come here to defend themselves....
Glad to see you worry about someone. Of course it would be some right winger who sues everybody including his Mother with Alzheimer's disease. With your attitude towards women this sounds like just the type you would support.
posted on October 17, 2003 08:45:44 AM new
You guys really crack me up. Defend the ones who have repeatedly taken illegal campaign contributions and smear the poor saps who the clinton's used for their own personal gain. Even though they clinton's were 'friends' with them, themselves. Birds of a feather maybe? lol
------
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan public interest law firm that goes after government corruption and abuse. They can't be blamed that the clinton's have given them so many occasions to go after them....just shows how corrupt they were. AND JW has gone after VP Cheney and the Bush Administration too. So that, to me, discounts your claims of their being a bias on their part.
------------
Anyone who does a google search and enters the words "Hillary illegal campaign contributions" or better yet "Clinton illegal campaign contributions" can easily see the number of times they have been accused of, AND HAVE RETURNED illegally made contributions to both of them.
Do the names Jorge Cabrera, Ng Lapseng, Johnny Chung, Joseph Douze, David Chang, DNC Rendell, Denise and Mark Rich not ring a bell to you? Was the FBI lying too about the whole China money connection and their illegal campaign contributions? Have you not read the accounts where Denise Rich asked an employee of hers [Hester] to make illegal campaign contrbutions to Hillary's campaign? The Rich story would take a book. But Denise is GREAT at taking the 5th whenever questions are put to her about the clintons. LOL
Fact is in this current case Hillary did not report these contributions. Fact is many times the Clinton's have returned money they shouldn't have taken in the first place....because it was illegal.
I understand the liberals hate Klayman with a passion because some of his suits have found favor with some federal judges. So that explains the quick and heated reaction I see. But I'm glad there are groups like his that "watch" both sides of the aisle.
After reading one of the links provided here, I am also reminded that Hillary still faces, along with Carville and Stephanopoulos, the lawsuit by Gennifer Flowers.
is typical of the length to which Clinton haters will go. Edmund Burk didn't say that. The Boogey-Man, and Mrs. Boogey will win this one too...
BTW...while you're at strangecosmos.com, don't forget to update your WeatherBug, it's really cool
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
is typical of the length to which Clinton haters will go. Edmund Burk didn't say that. The Boogey-Man, and Mrs. Boogey will win this one too...
BTW...while you're at strangecosmos.com, don't forget to update your WeatherBug, it's really cool
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
