Clintons to face fraud trial

[Road Scholar]

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 tomorrow 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 Clintons' 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.

Read more at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

[sandnsea]

1. Not an acceptable resource

I'm sure there must be some other outlet running the Peter Paul story.

[Why Syzygy]

13. The Clintons are very good at hiding the truth.

It has been reported on the major MSM.
http://www.hillcap.org/

Pretty stinky.


http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/06/hillary-clinton-and-largest-election.html

[JTFrog]

16. Don't hold your breath on seeing this talked about before the end of the primaries.

The case is real, you can look it up. Yet, not a peep from the MSM and you really do have to wonder why. If Obama had to appear to testify in any kind of case in November it would be plastered to every TV in the country.

Both Bill and Hillary have to appear and testify in court about their shady financial dealings right around the time of the general election. So why is this being avoided by the MSM? Certainly not because it isn't going to happen. She already tried to stop it and cannot.

[sandnsea]

21. Oh I know it's real

I was just recommending a better source for the story. There are a lot of real stories out there. Do you remember the media going on for days when Hsu was sentenced? No??? Exactly. I understand regular people being too busy to know all of this, but I don't understand why activists still support her when they do know. I don't know how we're supposed to campaign for her. I just hope it doesn't come to that.

[thoughtcrime1984]

2. I would think this would be all over the news if true

I am skeptical.

[MADem]

3. Gosh, the WORLD NET DAILY poop is flying all over this forum! NT

[DerekJ]

4. You just saw Obama supporters saying it's unacceptable, time for you to refuse sources like Newsmax

[MADem]

8. I do. You'll notice that I indicated in this post that they "make shit up."

And I used the CONDITIONAL voice when discussing the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5103870&mesg_id=5104210

Those rightwing sources are often less accurate than the supermarket tabloids. At least those tabloids pay Big Money for their dirt!

[buff2]

5. That's a rightwing rag

Sorry.......won't work.

[fasttense]

6. Just amazing how our justice system can be so easily manipulated

to determine the outcomes of elections.

What a legacy the bushes have given us. And it all started with the Dancing Supremes in 2000. We certainly live in a banana republic, where justice is no longer blind but very aware of your political affiliation.

[buff2]

7. How about KKKarl Rove and the Bu$hies?

Look at what crimes THEY have committed and no one does a darn thing. :grr:

[acmavm]

9. Obama supporters whipping out a World Nut Daily story. It's just sooooo

fitting.

[Recursion]

10. I wonder what Stan Lee thinks?

I assume the suit is BS, but even so it makes one wonder why he was a fundraiser for her for so long.

[flor de jasmim]

11. A couple of other sources

From Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html

From Progressive Review: http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

[Hugabear]

27. Yawn. Wake me up when you have a legitimate source

Even though I'm not a big Hillary fan, I can recognize sites with a huge anti-Hillary bias.

[donheld]

12. Boy we really are becoming Free Republic

Any DUer knows WorldNetDaily is not tolerated.

[Why Syzygy]

14. Not quite that simple.

This guy has a really shady past. The Clintons say that proves he is a liar. However, he did host a huge fund raiser for her Senatorial race. So was he a scum bag then too?

If the Clinton supporters are so worried about tarnished by association, this one should make thier hair stand on end.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3791892

However, there is a swiftboat element thrown in:

Paul's anti-Clinton effort is getting help from two technical producers who set up the Web site for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 campaign that went after Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry by raising questions about his decorated military service in Vietnam.

Robert Hahn and Scott Swett operate http://www.HillCAP.org, the Web site that Paul set up in 2005 to showcase court documents, videos and news articles related to his lawsuit. The video trailer "Hillary Uncensored," and the schedule for the movie are prominently displayed on the site.

[Recursion]

15. Agreed; my worry is not that this case has merits...

...it's that it shows Clinton had some very shady fundraisers for her 2000 campaign.

[JTFrog]

19. Paul is slime. But it's the kind of slime that they regulary bumped uglies with for cash.

All the denials they went through of not even knowing the guy who held a multi million dollar star studded affair for Hillary sound like all of their other denials. But as usual, follow the money and there they were in a nice happy photo with lots of checks brought in from this man.

This is being sat on until the primary is decided. The amount of ammunition that this couple have given the country with which to take aim if she is the nominee is pathetic.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. World Net Daily?

You can tell the article's a lie because the headline contains an obvious lie.

It's not "The Clintons". This guy tried to sue Hillary, but that was thrown out of court. Paul is a known and proven liar, and has about 0% chance of winning this.

[JTFrog]

23. It is The Clinton's.

Look it up instead of spewing.

Mr. Clinton remains a defendant in the Paul suit, though most of the counts against him have been dismissed on procedural grounds. The state court has dismissed Mrs. Clinton as a defendant, citing a California law that gives political activities broad legal protections. Mr. Paul has appealed that dismissal, arguing that Mrs. Clinton engaged in illegal activities, which wouldn't be protected.

"Even if Mr. Paul fails to pull Mrs. Clinton back in as a defendant, he vows to depose her in the case against Mr. Clinton. "We will still require her to testify under oath," Mr. Paul said in a recent interview.

Like the Hsu affair, the Paul case raises questions about the fund-raising practices of the Clinton camp. In both cases, Mrs. Clinton's campaign became closely involved with men who had criminal pasts. In 1992, Mr. Hsu pleaded no contest to a California fraud charge. He fled the state before he could be sentenced and in 2004 started showing up as a major donor to Democratic candidates. Mr. Hsu is in custody after he again attempted to flee from authorities in connection with the California fraud case. The Clinton campaign has said it knew nothing about Mr. Hsu's legal problems until recent news reports. The campaign recently said it was returning $850,000 Mr. Hsu had helped raise and will put in place new procedures for checking the backgrounds of donors.

=====

In a court filing earlier this year, Mr. Paul said it was "impossible" for the Clinton team to have not known about his felony convictions because he was thoroughly vetted by Secret Service and Democratic Party officials. He also claims he was asked to lie about his role in the Hollywood fund-raiser by Edward Rendell, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee and now governor of Pennsylvania. Gov. Rendell, who isn't a defendant in the lawsuit, didn't know about Mr. Paul's felonies until the Post reported on them and never asked Mr. Paul to lie, says a spokesman.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Who's spewing?

Hillary Clinton is not a defendant in the case. That's what I said, and what your excerpt confirms.

[JTFrog]

30. You said it was thrown out of court and that couldn't be further from the truth now could it?

Nice try tho.

[ThatPoetGuy]

37. YOUR OWN EXCERPT said the case against her was thrown out.

"The state court has dismissed Mrs. Clinton as a defendant"

from your excerpt. The lawsuit against her was thrown out.

Peter Paul himself is an abusive lunatic, convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges; part of the basis of this lawsuit is that he believes he owned a man, and the Clintons "stole" him.

[JTFrog]

38. The case has not been thrown out of court. Period. She was one of

many defendants listed in the suit and she is still going to be involved.

I am not claiming that this man has a leg to stand on. He's one sick disgusting man and I don't doubt he would use his own mother to further his career.

HOWEVER the case was not thrown out of court:

"A California state appeals court has upheld a previous ruling made in Los Angeles Superior Court which dismisses Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a civil lawsuit over the financing of a 2000 Hollywood fundraiser for her first senate campaign that was to honor the tenure of former President Bill Clinton. But the appeal judges also ruled that the plaintiff in the case may still be allowed to depose the former First Lady once discovery in the matter commences."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/417956/hillary_clinton_dismissed_as_a_defendant.html

*edit link

[MonkeyFunk]

40. I said his case against Hillary was thrown out

that's true.

I also said he has about 0% chance of winning the case that's going forward.

[JTFrog]

41. It's all one and the same case. Nothing was thrown out. She still has to testify under oath.

She is no longer a defendant in the case, but the judge said she will have to testify in the case.

What is so hard to understand about that? THE CLINTON's will be compelled to testify about their shady financial deals in a court of law as we enter a general election.

I've already stated I don't expect him to win his case and I think the guy is a total scumbag. But don't try to spin the facts as if this has already been dismissed and will just go away if we all ignore it.

[bowens43]

18. worldnetdaily? Why post that crap here?

[anniebelle]

20. World Nut Daily! Is this a joke?

[rucky]

22. C'mon. World Nut Daily?

If this is truly a matter of public record, then someone else has to be covering it.

[JTFrog]

25. You would think so huh.

Amazing how that doesn't always quite work out.

[leftofcool]

24. They suing Travolta for disco?

It's about damn time

[Hugabear]

26. This is absolute BULLSHIT until it's verified by a reputable source

Right wing sources should be grounds for automatic thread-locking.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. I'm at the point

where I think it should be an automatic supension, even a banning for repeat offenders.

I'm sick of seeing these sites used as sources by ANY faction.

[JTFrog]

31. Stay Focused!!! Pay no attention to other links in this thread!!!!

[Hugabear]

32. You mean the FUX News link and that other one?

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

[JTFrog]

33. Ah selective reading, I get it.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Keep holding your breath waiting for the MSM or any "reputable source" to touch this before the primary is decided. You do realize that there is already a swiftboat group putting together their slimy campaign about this right?

[Connie_Corleone]

34. Why in the world are you posting crap from World Nut Daily??

[JTFrog]

35. Agreed. Horrible source to use.

Although the basis of the story is true. This is a real case and it's still hanging around out there.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[Warren Stupidity]

36. That trial is crap, the case is crap and your source is crap. nt.

[Vinca]

39. Wall Street Journal is crap?

LOS ANGELES -- As Sen. Hillary Clinton grapples with the burgeoning scandal surrounding disgraced fund-raiser Norman Hsu, she can't quite shake a fund-raising controversy from her 2000 Senate campaign.

Mrs. Clinton's entanglement with a thrice-convicted felon named Peter Paul is proof of how long campaign-finance problems can haunt a public official. Mr. Paul became a problem for Mrs. Clinton when his criminal past became public shortly after he helped organize and finance a gala Hollywood fund-raiser for her in August 2000.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[rug]

42. This is plaintiff's attorney.

http://www.usjf.net/