Archive for July, 2007

Hillary Says Cher is A Key Witness and Maybe A Co-Felon in Hillary’s Election Law Crimes

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Cher Contributes 2 Songs For Fundraising  Gala Concert After Hillary Called her

Hillary Clinton made a remarkable admission of a felony violation of the federal election law in a the recently released video tape of a phone call Hillary made to her largest secret 2000 Senate race donor, Peter Paul.

The admission can be heard in the middle of the five minute taped conversation which included Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee.** Hillary tells Peter Paul that she has spoken to Cher for the first time, after Paul enlisted Cher’s singing services for the “hard money” concert he was producing and underwriting for Hillary’s campaign in August, 2000. Hillary’s call to Cher cinched the deal for Cher to perform for Hillary’s Senate campaign’s benefit.

Hillary’s solicitation of Cher’s contribution of her professional performing services, worth more than $150,000, to enable Paul to sell $1000 “hard money” contribution-tickets to benefit Hillary’s Senate campaign, resulted in Cher becoming a co-conspirator and material witness to Hillary’s felony violation of federal law.

It is illegal to contribute, as well as solicit, an excessive contribution (exceeding $2000) to a federal candidate under federal election law, Hillary effectively induced Cher to commit a felony with her!

Cher joins a long list of celebrity witnesses that participated in and/or have knowledge of Hillary’s illegal and fraudulent activities in dealing with Peter Paul.

The witness list includes Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Governor Ed Rendell, Larry King, Shirley McLaine, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, Diana Ross, Mike Wallace, Terry McAuliffe among many others. (more…)

Hillary & Bill Clinton’s Hubris In Libby Pardon Hypocrisy

Thursday, July 5th, 2007

Bill and Hillary Clinton got away with selling pardons directly to fugitive billionaire partners Marc Rich and Pincus Green, and to other assorted criminals through their relatives Roger Clinton and Tony and Hugh Rodham. Their criminal abuse of the Constitution’s power of Presidential pardon was briefly investigated by a grand jury in New York under the aegis of U.S. Attorney Mary Snow before it was promptly covered up by the Bush Justice Department’s desire to “move on” after deals made between Bush and Democratic Congressional leaders stemming from the problematic 2000 election.

Yet the media is allowing the Clinton’s to get away with attacking the current White House’s supposed lack of respect for the Rule of Law because of the commutation of a lengthy jail sentence for an administration aide for engaging in a lack of candor about political “speech”.

In the case of Paul v Clinton (www.hillcap.org) a video tape has now been recovered from the US Attorney in New York, who withheld it for six years from various federal investigations, recording Hillary Clinton’s speaker phone conversation with her largest donor in 2000. It captures Hillary engaging in felony violations of the federal election law and admissions of other felony violations while it presents irrefutable evidence that Hillary and then President Clinton conspired together to engage in numerous direct and indirect actions that misled and obstructed more than three federal investigations of their election law violations, and one unnecessary criminal indictment and trial of Hillary’s finance director resulting from their obstructions of justice.

The same contempt and disdain the Clintons shared for the Rule of Law when they controlled the White House and Justice Department has become more pronounced and emboldened through their successful efforts to elect Hillary to the Senate by publicly and overtly breaking most laws applicable to campaign financing and successfully obstructing every effort by various federal agencies to investigate their actions. Their impunity for any and all misconduct they engaged in after leaving the White House has been confirmed by their current frontrunner status in their efforts to regain the White House, and the total media blackout of the pending civil fraud case against them.

If the public sleeps idly bye while the Clintons make an issue about the Libby commutation, while failing to hold the Clintons accountable in the court of last resort, the court of public opinion, for their role in the frauds detailed in Paul v Clinton, then the Clintons will have demonstrated that they are not only exempt from the Rule of Law for whatever criminality they commit, but that they are politically “pardoned” by the electorate for any and all misconduct they engage in.

This publicly accepted institutional unaccountability being crafted by the Clintons can only lead to the final erosion of the remaining freedoms and protections under the law and the Constitution that will condemn all Americans to Clinton style political gangsterism never before tolerated in America.

Below is the legal argument presented to the California Appellate Court regarding the felonies being committed by Hillary Clinton as captured on the recently obtained video tape submitted as evidence in Paul v Clinton:

B. HRC/Committee’s Conduct Does Not Enjoy First Amendment Protection In Any Event Because It Was Criminal, As a Matter of Law.

Paul argued before that the campaign contributions solicited by Hillary R Clinton and her Senate Campaign Committee (”HRC/Committee”) were illegal by virtue of the failure of New York Senate 2000 Joint Fundraising Committee (NYS 2000) to accurately report them. HRC/Committee responded that NYS 2000’s false underreporting of Paul’s $1.2 million-plus in expenditures for the Tribute, while illegal, was not conduct by HRC or the Committee, nor is it the conduct giving rise to Paul’s case. Paul has now identified a far more direct basis for demonstrating that HRC/Committee’s conduct was not protected by the First Amendment. The very conduct which HRC/Committee view as giving rise to Paul’s claims – soliciting campaign contributions and organizing a fundraising event – was, in this instance, illegal and therefore not protected. Their legal right to solicit campaign contributions from Paul ended once he had given HRC’s campaign the maximum allowable contribution of $2,000.
Under federal campaign finance law, all of Paul’s expenditures at issue in this case must be deemed federal (“hard” money) contributions to HRC’s Senate campaign and not nonfederal (“soft” money) contributions to NYS 2000 Joint Fundraising Committee. (2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(7)(B)(i)) (Section 441a(a)(7)(B)(i)). That section provides:
[E]xpenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate. [emphasis added]

The maximum Paul was permitted to contribute to HRC’s Senate campaign was $2,000, whether as cash or in-kind contributions. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 23, 36-37. (2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(A)) That section presently provides:
No person shall make contributions…to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000.

It also was illegal for HRC/Committee to “knowingly accept” Paul’s contributions in excess of $2,000. (2 U.S.C. § 441a(f)
In fact, because HRC/Committee’s solicitation and coordination of Paul’s contributions were done “knowingly and willfully” and the amount involved exceeded $25,000 for the calendar year 2000, their so-called “protected activity” constituted a felony under Title 2 of the United States Code, section 437g(d)(1)(A)(i).
The First Amendment does not protect criminal activity, and neither does the anti-SLAPP statute. Paul for Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1366-67; Furthermore, contrary to HRC/Committee’s claim, the new evidence represented by the 7/5/05 FEC General Counsel’s Brief (5CT975-997), the 9/29/05 FEC General Counsel’s Report #2 (5CT9989-1028) and NYS 2000’s 12/29/05 Conciliation Agreement (4CT966-5CT974) establishes a key fact: that the Tribute was indeed financed almost single-handedly by Peter Paul, who expended over $1.2 million producing this event alone, a huge sum. (5CT981:1-8)
The fact that HRC/Committee’s conduct was criminal neither adds to nor subtracts from their liability to Paul, but it does mean their conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.
Most telling is what the Defendants do not say when they are confronted with the charge that they directly and personally solicited over $1.2 million from Paul in campaign contributions. They do not say, “So what? We had a right to do that.” They do not make any attempt to argue that our legal analysis is incorrect. (Opening Brief at 52-59) They never take issue with the contention that if it can be shown that HRC/Committee solicited or coordinated Paul’s in-kind expenditures, they must be considered contributions to HRC’s campaign — and therefore excessive – thus rendering HRC/Committee’s acceptance of them criminal conduct. Far from it. HRC/Committee’s sole defense is that (a) “there is no evidence to support this theory” and (b) it is supposedly contradicted by the FEC documents Paul submitted into evidence. (Oppos. Brief at 20)
HRC/Committee have thus conceded that if Paul’s evidence demonstrates that their conduct does amount to soliciting and coordinating his in-kind expenditures, such conduct is not protected, and the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to this case.
1. Not Only Did HRC/Committee Admit to Soliciting Paul’s Contributions, But Paul’s Evidence Also Proves It.

In arguing that “Plaintiff has not offered any new evidence to support this new argument,” HRC/Committee first attempt to explain away Paul’s observation that they admitted they solicited Paul’s political contributions. (Oppos. Brief at 24, re Opening Brief at 52) In their own words:
Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to report political contributions accurately. … However, reporting was not the protected activity. The protected activity was “the solicitation of political contributions and the organization of a fundraising event.”(5CT1043:24-25)

Since HRC/Committee’s basis for bringing their anti-SLAPP motion is that Paul’s claims against them arise from protected activity, and the activity at issue is “solicitation of political contributions and the organization of a fundraising event,” this is an admission that they solicited Paul’s contributions and assisted in organizing the Tribute. Otherwise, what protected conduct have they engaged in that entitles them to bring an anti-SLAPP motion?
Mr. Rosen may not have admitted to soliciting “improper” campaign contributions, but he certainly claimed to have solicited campaign contributions from Paul, most notably in his anti-SLAPP motion. Moreover, by speaking not just of his own conduct but that of “Defendants” — which he defined as including WJC, HRC, the Committee, NYS 2000, and himself (1CT63:26-28) — Rosen acknowledged that their conduct also constituted solicitation of campaign contributions:
This motion is made on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action arising from Defendants’ solicitation of contributions for political parties and candidates. (1CT61:6-9)

Here, the complaint shows on its face that the causes of action asserted against Mr. Rosen all arise out of Defendants’ solicitation of political contributions – an activity at the core of Defendants’ constitutional rights of speech…. (1CT63:10-13)

All of Plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Rosen and the other Defendants arise out of the solicitation of political contributions…. (1CT65:1-2)

Here, Plaintiff’s claims all arise either directly from Defendants’ solicitation of political contributions from Plaintiff or from alleged acts in furtherance of such solicitation. See, e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 21-22, 29, 32-33, 34-40, 44-51, 54-55, 59-68, 84-85, 86-88, 100, 106, 145-154, 156-163, 165-166, 197-199. (1CT66:20-21)

Noticeably, Rosen’s anti-SLAPP motion did not put any qualifications on this characterization of the Defendants’ collective conduct, such as: “IF Defendants engaged in any of the acts alleged in the complaint, THEN they would have been acts of solicitation of political contributions from Plaintiff.” His assertions take it for granted that the Defendants did solicit Paul’s campaign contributions.
HRC/Committee’s contention that they “never stated they directly solicited campaign contributions from Paul or that they organized the Tribute,” is simply not true. HRC/Committee now even take the position that Paul’s First Amended Complaint (Complaint) alleges that they did nothing more than make “statements relating to a political campaign”. However, an examination of the specific conduct alleged in those paragraphs refutes this claim.
Paragraph 51 describes conduct constituting HRC’s direct involvement in negotiating Smith’s fee for producing the concert portion of the Tribute (1CT026:6-9), designed to generate over a thousand hard-money contributions to HRC’s campaign by ticket sales at $1,000 each. By not only involving herself in the choice of who was to produce the concert, but becoming involved in negotiating his fee (or claiming to do so) to ensure Paul would use Smith, HRC was effectively “directing” Paul’s expenditures for the benefit of her campaign.
Paragraph 66 sets forth HRC’s telephone calls to Paul during the weeks leading up to the Tribute, to thank him for his generous support and to encourage him to continue. (1CT026:3-7) If HRC was “encouraging” Paul to continue his “financial support,” how is that not a solicitation for contributions?
Paragraph 78 describes HRC’s call the day after the Tribute, thanking Paul for underwriting it and expressing how important it was to her campaign. (1CT031:17-19) This shows HRC’s “knowing and willful” “acceptance” of Paul’s excessive, hard-money contributions. (2 U.S.C. §§ 437g(d)(1)(A)(i) and 441a(f))
Finally, paragraph 85 describes HRC’s sending Paul a note thanking him for his friendship and for the event, (1CT033:1-5) written on official letterhead for her U.S. Senate campaign. (4CT909) This shows HRC’s understanding that Paul’s contributions were intended to benefit her campaign, as well as her “knowing and willful” “acceptance” of those contributions. (2 U.S.C. §§ 437g(d)(1)(A)(i) and 441a(f))
Clearly, the allegations of the Complaint go well beyond the making of innocuous statements relating to a political campaign. They fully implicate HRC/Committee’s conduct as “solicitation of campaign contributions and organization of a fundraising event” for her campaign, which necessarily invokes the application of Section 441a(a)(7)(B)(i). Such allegations also constitute competent evidence of HRC’s conduct, as they have been verified as being based on Paul’s personal knowledge and not “information and belief.” (4CT782:4-26) Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 85 (“A verification is an affidavit of the truth of the matter stated.”).
HRC/Committee also try to sanitize their conduct by painting the many documented examples of solicitation and coordination of Paul’s contributions (by HRC and by WJC, Rendell, Levin, and Rosen, acting as her agents) listed at pages 55-57 of the Opening Brief as mere “statements of Plaintiff’s mistaken belief that he allegedly was contributing to ‘HRC’s campaign,’ rather than to NYS 2000.” (Oppos. Brief at 26) After tossing out this bald assertion, HRC/Committee do absolutely nothing to explain why, despite such conduct (which they never dispute happened), Paul’s expenditures were not contributions to HRC’s campaign.
Substantial evidence exists to establish the fact that Paul’s numerous, high-dollar contributions cannot be regarded as contributions to NYS 2000 because they were solicited and coordinated by HRC’s agents for the benefit of HRC’s campaign. Included in the evidence is Paul’s testimony that Levin called him and directly solicited Paul to pay for the proposed Tribute after Levin, Kelly Craighead (HRC’s senior staff official (4CT790:9)), and Rosen had just got done meeting with Aaron Tonken (who was Paul’s agent and employee (4CT785:23-24, 27-28) (Tonken)) on June 23, 2000, in Chicago. (4CT790:4-16)
Tonken’s autobiographical account corroborates the fact that it was during that June 23 meeting that the idea for the Tribute was first conceived. While Tonken claimed it had been his idea to put together a star-studded extravaganza for the President and First Lady, he noted that Levin had insisted it be a fundraiser for HRC’s campaign. In addition, Tonken said he “almost died” when they told him that any such event would have to be put together in less than two months, because it would have to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. (4CT843-44) Tonken’s account thus establishes that HRC’s campaign controlled the concept of the event that Paul was subsequently asked to underwrite.
Levin’s sworn testimony regarding the same June 23 meeting shows the extent to which agents for HRC/Campaign knowingly solicited Paul’s underwriting of the Tribute. Levin’s account also demonstrates how, by instructing him to directly oversee all preparations for the event, WJC (as HRC’s agent) used Levin to further coordinate Paul’s expenditures for the Tribute.
The DVD submitted with Paul’s concurrently filed Motion to Admit Documentary Evidence demonstrates that, not only HRC/Committee’s agents – but HRC herself – personally cooperated, consulted, and worked in concert with Paul to coordinate his expenditures for the concert portion of the Tribute. (Section 441a(a)(7)(B)(i)) The DVD also shows that HRC assisted Paul in securing the unpaid professional services of key entertainers like Cher as additional in-kind contributions. (Id.)
In sum, contrary to HRC/Committee’s assertion, there is certainly no shortage of evidence showing that HRC/Committee directly solicited and coordinated Paul’s in-kind contributions – including admitting to that fact in their moving papers, Paul’s testifying to that fact in the allegations of the Complaint and Supplemental Declaration, plus the other sworn testimony and first-hand account cited above, which show that these contributions must be considered “hard” money contributions to HRC’s campaign.
2. The FEC Never Considered Whether Paul’s In-Kind Contributions Were Solicited and Coordinated by HRC and Her Committee.

HRC/Committee contend that Paul “raised the same allegations with the FEC almost six years ago, and the FEC rejected them.” (Oppos. Brief at 26) This claim is doubly false. First, Paul’s complaint to the FEC raised a different issue, namely, false reporting under Title 2 of the United States Code section 434(b). Second, the FEC found that this section had, indeed, been violated, and it imposed a fine. (4CT966; 970-72) Paul’s claims were vindicated, not rejected.
Paul’s FEC Complaint was entitled “False Reporting of Federal Election Campaign Contributions.” The Complaint named HRC, the Committee, NYS 2000, Rosen, Edward Rendell, Stephanie Berger, Levin, and WJC as Respondents and alleged violations of:
A. 2 U.S.C. § 431, et seq. (definitions)
B. 2 U.S.C. § 434(b) (reporting requirements);
C. 11 C.F.R. § 104.3 (contents of reports);
D. 11 C.F.R. § 110.9(a) (violation of limitations); and
E. 11 C.F.R. § 110.9(b) (fraudulent misrepresentation)

(Paul’s FEC Complaint at 1)
Paul’s FEC Complaint never actually raised the issue of whether Paul’s in-kind contributions should have been deemed contributions to HRC’s Committee or NYS 2000. In fact, Paul’s FEC Complaint never makes any reference at all to Section 441a(a)(7)(B)(i), the key campaign finance code section now at issue.
Nor did the FEC take it upon itself to explore this issue, which was outside the stated scope of Paul’s FEC Complaint. Rather, the FEC focused its inquiry narrowly on the false reporting of the source and amount of Paul’s in-kind contributions for the Tribute. Consequently, the only parties found to be at fault were NYS 2000 and Andrew Grossman (in his official capacity as its treasurer), the only parties legally obligated to properly report the contributions. (5CT1010:1-4) Since none of the other Respondents to Paul’s FEC Complaint was legally obligated to file such reports, none of them was found to have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. (5CT1010:12-29)
HRC/Committee were not candid in their September 28, 2001, Response to Paul’s FEC Complaint when they stated: “The August 12, 2000 event was a joint fundraiser held by New York Senate 2000, it was not a Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee event.” This statement is flatly contradicted by HRC’s sworn testimony in this case, that: “In the summer of 2000, I knew Mr. Gary Smith and believed his work to be professional and of very high quality. I remember that he was asked to produce a fundraising event for my Senate campaign, which was held on August 12, 2000.” (5CT1175:15-17) (emphasis added)
HRC/Committee make much of the FEC’s findings that (1) the Committee “did not accept any ‘advancements’ of prohibited or excessive funds from the other participants, or from any other sources in connection with the August 12, 2001 event;” and (2) Senator Clinton “similarly did not accept any illegal contributions.” (Oppos. Brief at 26, citing 5CT1008:6-7, 20) Both findings, however, resulted from the FEC’s “limited audit” of allocating fundraising costs. The FEC never considered whether Paul’s in-kind contributions had to be deemed contributions to HRC’s campaign.
In short, the FEC did not have the same evidence that this Court now has and was never asked to evaluate the question that this Court is being asked to consider. Consequently, the FEC’s seeming exoneration of both HRC and her Committee, recommending that the Commission find no reason to believe that either of them “violated any provision of the Act or regulations in connection with this matter” (5CT1008:10-13, 20-22) is simply not conclusive as to issues not considered. This Court is thus the first tribunal to be asked to decide whether HRC/Committee violated Title 2 of the United States Code section 441a(f).
3. Federal Preemption Doctrines Are Inapplicable Because This Court Is Merely Being Asked to Determine Whether Section 425.16 Protects the Conduct at Issue.

Finally, HRC/Committee suggest that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Paul’s argument that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply because HRC/Committee’s “protected” conduct was a violation of federal law. They state: “The FEC has ‘the sole discretionary power to determine in the first instance whether or not a civil violation of the [Federal Election Campaign Act] has occurred. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. (1981) 454 U.S. 27, 37 (internal quotation omitted).)” (Oppos. Brief at 27, fn.26)
There are three problems with this argument. First, Paul has set forth a criminal violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), not civil.
Secondly, HRC/Committee effectively claim an unfettered right to solicit illegal campaign contributions merely because the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement. This would mean that all manner of criminal conduct subject to enforcement by a federal agency would enjoy the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute, thwarting the very purpose of the statute, which exists only to protect the valid exercise of First Amendment rights. (Section 425.16, subd. (a))