Archive for January, 2007

Hillary Clinton’s Secret Destiny Will affect Her “Conversation” with America

Sunday, January 21st, 2007

During some private moments I shared with Hillary Clinton during the four hours we spent together on June 9, 2000, Hillary confided to me a few confidences which provide telling insights into her character. The most interesting personal disclosure related to her first visit to my alma mater during Dartmouth College’s Winter Carnival in 1967. Hillary was set up on a blind date with a good looking freshman from California, who coincidentally was a friend of mine, and in the course of the weekend long date he got drunk, tried to use his surf board on the snow covered slopes of the college golf course, and promptly abandoned her. Clearly this left an indellible memory on herpart.

When I used a reference to Hillary’s date story in my introduction of her to a crowd of 150 Hollywood elite that I assembled to donate money to her campaign, including Larry King, Melanie Griffith among others, Hillary looked up at me before I could provide the embarassing details and said, Dont tell them everything! That phrase has come to represent my relationship with her ever since.

Her appearance during the late 1960’s seemed more ideally suited for a Paula Jones fan like Bill Clinton, than the California surfer “type” she had been attracted to, guaranteeing her embarassment when her blind date at Dartmoth turned into a trauma she will always remember.

In the course of the bonding session we had during a VIP lunch I hosted for her at Spago in Beverly Hills, June 9, 2000, I made references to my swashbuckling days as an international lawyer in Miami in the 1970s when I led a plot to expose Fidel Castros frauds on his benefactors in the Soviet Union. We liberated almost $10 million from Castros personal piggy bank, the Banco Nacional de Cuba. These activities, during Jimmy Carter and Bert Lance control of the government, resulted in my receiving two felony convictions and a suspension of my law license, knowledge that clearly did not bother Hillary.(see my latest court filing in Paul v Clinton et al)
Hillary did discuss fate and destiny with me and her belief that we are all predestined to the lives we live. She intimated her conviction that her destiny could lead her to becoming the most reknown woman in history, and I had the distinct impression it was based on her presumption of a career beyond being the first Co-President of the US and the first First Lady to become a US Senator. Hillarys announcement is clearly not a surprise to anyone who has known and followed Hillarys career- it was in fact anti-climactic in the controlled, low key way she threw her considerable girth into the ring. But the notion that she is interested in a conversation with her fellow Americans signals the beginning of the most cynical, Clinton-speak propaganda campaign since Joseph Goebbels and Lenni Riefenstahl got together to develop a winning political campaign for Mr. Shickelgruber. The American people, and America as we know, it is now officially threatened by the greatest internal political threat that has ever confronted our civil liberties and our constitutional democracy.

Hillary’s Criminal Conduct Presented to Three Judge Appeal’s Court for Adjudication

Saturday, January 20th, 2007

On January 11, 2007, for the first time in Hillary Clinton’s checkered career as a Rose Law firm partner, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady and Co-President of the U.S. and U.S. Senator, evidence of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misconduct, involving election law felonies punishable by five years in prison, has been presented to an appellate court for “judicial review”.

In the past, Hillary has always escaped judicial review of her misconduct as a defendant in the various criminal actions investigated by a series of Grand Juries and Special prosecutors. Her “teflon” contempt for the law has been enabled by the impossible standard for “convictability” that is applied to her by those who would consider prosecuting her. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s successor Robert Ray reluctantly concluded at the end of the Whitewater and related investigations in 2000 that while there was convincing evidence of numerous counts of Hillary’s perjury and obstruction of justice, it would be futile to indict her because of her “unconvictability” as a First Lady. This sentiment was echoed by House Impeachment Manager Dave Schippers in explaining why Hillary wasn’t indicted in connection with perjury and obstruction in the Impeachment proceedings.

Hillary has used power, influence and, finally, celebrity personality to elevate herself above the Rule of Law, and thereby avoid any judicial review of her series of criminal actions. She even used her Co-Presidential power of appointment of federal judges to have a judge she and Bill appointed to the bench in Los Angeles preside over the criminal trial of her finance director, David Rosen, in 2005. Bill appointee, Judge Matz, publicly declared Hillary’s complete innocence and lack of any involvement in Rosen’s indicted charges before any evidence was ever presented in court!

Now, after three years of maneuvering in Paul v Clinton et al, Hillary managed to invoke a California statute that protects candidates from frivolous law suits, and she was dismissed from the case as a defendant in April, 2006, (but not as a material witness) based on her First Amendment protection of committing civil frauds in the course of campaign fund raising. While the California Anti-SLAPP law can protect frauds committed by candidates in the course of fund raising, it does not protect their criminality in connection with fund raising. The facts of the case demonstrate conclusively that Hillary committed at least one felony in her role in violating Federal campaign finance laws.

If the Appellate Court agrees that the facts presented in Peter Paul’s appeal show that Hillary did engage in felonious activity in connection with soliciting, coordinating and coercing more than $1 million from Paul for her Senate campaign in 2000, then the court will overturn the trial court ruling granting Hillary First Amendment Anti-SLAPP protection, and remand the case instructing the trial court that Hillary continue as a defendant in the case which has been green lighted against her husband and other accomplices to proceed to trial.

This question now presented to the court can have historic consequences if the court chooses that specific ground as its basis to remand Hillary for civil trial for fraud and conspiracy. However, the court can reach the same conclusion based on an array of other issues that would get the court off the hook from being the first judicial proceeding to ever find as a matter of fact and law that Hillary Rodham Clinton committed a felony.
Hillary’s responsive brief, to be filed through David Kendall, will be presented within the next 45 days, and will require more nimble legal slight of hands than were ever used in the Paula Jones and Impeachment matters. Unless it is more reasoned than Hillary’s sworn Declaration of incipient Alzheimer’s, Hillary could well have alot of explaining to do when her well oiled cover-up machine explodes in a thousand pieces.