Imagine if one of the leading Republican candidates for president in 2008 like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani had a civil lawsuit for campaign finance fraud pending against him. Do you think that the media would be following this action with every legal brief filed, and every breath uttered by anyone involved?
Well, there is a huge campaign finance fraud case pending against Hillary Clinton that was enacted by the largest contributor to the junior senator’s 2000 campaign almost three years ago, and the media couldn’t care less. Those looking for some background regarding this issue should read a comprehensive analysis of the subject published by the New Media Journal last March.
With that in mind, on January 11, a brief was filed concerning this action in the California Court of Appeals alleging criminal misconduct by the lady who would be president that no media outlet reported except for World Net Daily:
A brief filed yesterday in a civil fraud case alleges Sen. Hillary Clinton engaged in criminal misconduct, citing a violation of federal code that carries a possible five-year prison sentence.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, who claims he was the largest contributor to Clinton's 2000 campaign, alleges the New York Democrat solicited and accepted his illegal contribution of more than $1 million and falsified statements to the Federal Election Commission.
Hadn’t heard about this? Well, how could you, for no one reported it!
The article continued:
Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues in the brief filed with the California Court of Appeal that Sen. Clinton's actions violated 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."
To put this in some perspective, last year, a sitting senator from Virginia, who was considered to be a serious presidential candidate in the future, uttered the word “macaca” at a campaign stop. As a result, the media pounced, the videotape of the event and its transcript was splattered incessantly all over the print and airwaves, and the senator not only lost his re-election bid, but probably also saw his political career come to an end.
Furthermore, the media in recent weeks have been giving almost non-stop coverage to the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former chief of staff.
By contrast, the media have totally ignored a serious lawsuit against a former president and his senator wife that was originally filed on February 25, 2004. Since this point, this senator has successfully been re-elected to Congress in a landslide, and is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democrat nomination for president in 2008.
Yet, not a word about this court filing two weeks ago anywhere but World Net Daily.
Think the media would be so mum if McCain, Guiliani, or any major Republican was involved in this action regardless of the merits of the case or this brief?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why do they protect this thor
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 14:34 ET by mattmWhy do they protect this thoroughly corrupted person? There are plenty of other Liberal Democrats they could carry the water for who don't have this baggage, and who wouldn't compromise the integrity of the Nation were they to become president. This incestuous relationship between the media and the Clintons has always baffled me.
It's a game, to be sure. All
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 15:00 ET by bulletproofIt's a game, to be sure. All "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The question remains, will the conservative majority abstain from apathy soon enough to maintain the veto balance, or will we will spend the next 20 years undoing the damage that will be wrought on our economy and society in the next 4 to 8 years (deja vue all over again)?
The MSM know that if they report this, Hillary is done. They'll never get the White House on Obama alone...no matter how much they make a big deal out of our national undercurrent of racism (I wish that the MSM were a race, then I could be a racist).
My question is, where the hell is the Fox News Channel?
our man noel comes to mind
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 17:45 ET by tumbler_2007Hear hear! Noel Sheppard; alert Sean Hannity and your other contacts. He should make it impossible for the other media talking heads to bury this story. Plus; suggest the next conservative guest on Larry King bring this hidden goodie up casually during an interview. Lynne Cheney-style, like when she walked all over Blitzer-Putz.
Your comments suggest that
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 09:56 ET by mytwocentsYour comments suggest that you would like this story buried. Why would that be exactly?
Hillary
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 14:53 ET by Jerry MackIf and when this makes its' way into the msm Hillary will call it a vast "Right Wing Conspiracy". Cnn, Msnbc, Abc, Nbc and Cbs will instantly agree with her. Look for a lot of picking on the defenseless woman episodes on the View ect.
I agree, Jerry Mack. And not
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 15:19 ET by Mica the MagnificentI agree, Jerry Mack. And not only 'the defenseless woman act' but they'll have 'experts' on every day who will educate the masses on how powerful women emasculate men. And strong smart women, like Hillary, are needed during a 'nurturing' faze America must go through after the Bush-Cheney juggernaut of war and isolation and death, etc.
And don't forget about the 'glass ceiling' men don't want her to break, and so on and so on . .
"And strong smart women,
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 15:27 ET by Eric Turner"And strong smart women, like Hillary, are needed during a 'nurturing' faze America must go through after the Bush-Cheney juggernaut of war and isolation and death, etc."
Master, you are strong and wise in the ways of the force. For you have seen the future. I am a mere padawan before you. As surely as I sit lazely before my computer screen. I have seen this which you have foretold. I am positive this will come to pass.
Oh a serious note - you have surely hit the nail on the head. I can honestly see this being played out on the MsM. Katie Colic will take it to new heights. The Vulgar...er, the View will play into it also. Even that democratic she-man Matt Lauer will buy into it.
AKA: armyvet
Seat Belt
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 15:33 ET by Jerry MackMTM: Your details of the possible onslaught have reminded me that it is time to order new flame repelling under wear and a new seat belt for my chair.
Rest assured that the sultaness of fat will
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 18:17 ET by misterbillRest assured that the sultaness of fat will leap to her defense on the View.
"It's just a right wing ploy to make a God fearing woman look bad."
Exactly. I know because I am
Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:47 ET by pbanks7Exactly. I know because I am a Charter Member of the Vast Right-wing Conspriracy. The media will ignore this as long as possible. Then if Hate Radio stirs it up so they can no longer ignore it, it WILL be part of the VRWC. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
ALL Media Have Ignored Civil Fraud Suit Against Hillary & Bill
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 15:27 ET by accuserThe first civil fraud suit to accuse a sitting President of conspiring with a First Lady/Senate candidate and two Chair's of the democratic party to solicit, coordinate, coerce, direct and then hide from the voters and the FEC the largest contribution ever admittedly made to a Senate candidate has been stonewalled by ALL media except for World Net Daily and Newmediajournal.us. (see the coverage on www.hillcap.org) WHY? How could the conservative and libertarian media hide it as well? That is the $64,000 question.
What makes the stonewalling of the case more mysterious is that it involves the destruction by the Clintons of a $100 million public company founded by Spider Man creator Stan Lee (who refuses to demand Hillary correct a false attribution of $225,000 from him in a January 30, 2006 FEC report) and the witnesses include Larry King, Barbara Streisand, Brad Pitt and Mike Wallace!
If concerned citizens would but read the public record linked to the Document page of www.hillcap.org, they would see among other smoking guns, a signed, sworn Declaration from Hillary R Clinton that fails to deny any of Peter Paul's 32 allegations made in his Sworn Declaration and his civil suit.
It's worth the time reviewing how Hillary has coopted all three branches of the government AND the Fourth Estate by reviewing the facts in this case, see the videos and photos that explain and corroborate all the facets of Hillary's frauds and coverups..
Its
Do the perp walk
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 18:48 ET by nkviking75Oh, to see Hillary do the perp walk. Well, if the worst happens, I have to think this scandal would amount to grounds for impeachment. God forbid Hillary should be elected, but maybe the Clintons can be the first husband-wife team to be impeached.
As an aside, Hillary is here in Iowa today. The temperature dropped 25 degrees from yesterday, and the winds are gusting up to 45 mph. Coincidence? You decide. Anyone who came out in this weather to see Hillary today provided evidence of their own mental instability.
Anyone remember all the mon
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 19:42 ET by motherbeltdelete double post
mother - Clinton Scandals
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 19:47 ET by Eric Turnermother, I've not really looked through this website much, but it supposedly lists all the various Clinton scandals and other scandals connected to him or his administration.
I don't know how accurate it is. Maybe take some of it with a grain of salt ya know? I mean the right-wing has nutcases too.
AKA: armyvet
Eric, I've seen sites like
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 20:45 ET by motherbeltEric, I've seen sites like that, and some of them are way out there, it's true. But what I said IS true...people were indicted for giving money illegally, but no one was ever charged with taking it illegally. What was that about? Were they all so naive they didn't know it was illegal?
mother
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 20:48 ET by Eric TurnerOh no mother, don't get me wrong. I know what you're saying is true. I was just talking about the site. That's all. Personally, if someone told me that Hillary Clinton had slept with Osama I'd believe it....and then feel sorry for Osama.
AKA: armyvet
EricIn bad moves of judgeme
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 11:04 ET by Right2thePointEric
In bad moves of judgement I have done some hags and bags in my life.
But even I would not do that.
Thus the reason I'd feel sorr
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 15:29 ET by Eric TurnerThus the reason I'd feel sorry for Osama!
AKA: armyvet
Anyone remember all the mon
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 19:46 ET by motherbeltAnyone remember all the money scandals during the Clinton presidency, Riady, Huang, Chung et al? Plenty of people were indicted for bribery, or making illegal contributions, but not a single person was ever indicted for accepting them. And the media had no problem with that.
Of course the media will ignore this..it doesn't fit their template. Republicans= corruption. With Democrats, it's always a staff member. Look at Conyers...he acts like his staff just decided to baby-sit and drive his kids around on their own. His only mistake was a "lack of clarity" on what was and wasn't allowed.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Clinton staff member take the fall on this. Those darned peons...they just love the Clintons so much, they break laws to help them (unknown to their bosses, of course).
Oh Noel. Thanks so much for
Sat, 01/27/2007 - 23:42 ET by bigtimerOh Noel.
Thanks so much for this new info! I give up on this going anywhere.
I was looking for a place to put her little campaign stop in Iowa...talk about no tough questions, it was mostly like health care, in other words her Universal Health Care Program that was rejected, by her own party may I add, and teachers, et al...it was all socialism...
What I found outright obvious was her total zero questions about the on-going war.....it was breath-taking, I guess she is one of those, cover my eyes over my face and I do not have to face the situation or answer any tough questions...but hey, lets chat!
On top of that she lied about the VA funds and the increase the 'R's have improved on with the VA over the years, she lied about 'No Child Left Behind'...and said that test scores do not equate with learning...they are just a snap shot in time....
Anybody that follows that witch knows she is seeking the backing of UNIONS...whatever it is left of them...thanks to the greed and corruption they have created within their own organizations...on and on it goes....
Then to top it off...she said this...
"I fear our VP and President are going to leave us a pretty big hole for us to climb out of"...the audacity of her, how dare she! ...
Phony phony wicked wicked witch.
Thanks for the update, bt.
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 07:47 ET by motherbeltThanks for the update, bt.
This woman is as phony as they come. In her announcement speech, she kept trying to smile the whole time...she even smiled when she talked about the conversation in DC being a little one-sided lately, like it was an inside joke. If she was serious, she should have had a serious look on her face. But she was SO trying to come across as relaxed and friendly.
But her "friendliness" only lasts so long. When she is reading scripted remarks, she is almost boring, but when she gets mad in a speech, her voice becomes loud and shrill, and I think every man in America hears his angry wife screaming at him....a definite put-off (at least I hope so!)
She only made the campaign
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 10:49 ET by Right2thePointShe only made the campaign stop because Putin wasn't available.
Staged
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 10:56 ET by nkviking75You can bet that the questioners were pre-screened. There probably wasn't one spontaneous factor in the whole event, other than the sound guy who allowed Hillary's singing to be heard. (I bet he'll never work a Dem event in Iowa again.) Also, Iowa was positively frigid (!) on Saturday, with low temps and very strong winds making any venture outdoors a miserable experience. Those had to be hardcore Hillary supporters to endure the cold just to see her.
Alibi
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 11:01 ET by Jimbo"I fear our VP and President are going to leave us a pretty big hole for us to climb out of” She is already seeting up her excuse for a do noting Presedency. Can’t you just hear it now? Six years from now she would be saying “It’s not my fault, it’s BUSH’S fault!! I said it even before I was elected!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Question for Hillary Clinton?
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 11:03 ET by acaiguanaQuestion for Hillary Clinton?
Are you now or have you ever been my ex-wife?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Peter Paul credibility
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 12:17 ET by mdokrNowhere in this story is there any real background about Mr Paul and his own colorful and checkered past. He's been making serious charges against the Clintons for years and I've never given much thought to the source. I just took a few minutes to research Mr Paul which did show his "heroic" fraud of the Cuban government, and also showed he was charged and convicted of cocaine posession/trafficking with intent to distribute when his home was searched during the fraud investigation. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison for the drugs and, I think 3 years on the fraud, but served less. He was also later charged with using nominee accounts to purchase 1.6 million shares of Stan Lee to support the stock price with insider knowledge, and paid for them with bad checks. After this he took off for Brazil and fought extradition. When someone like this claims he's "the victim" I really have to think twice. Why didn't any of this info find its way into the above story? Often there's more to any story than just what's on the surface and can change one's perception. For me I won't give much give much credibility to a felon convicted of drug trafficking. Sorry.
Objectivity...interesting...W
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 15:24 ET by bulletproofObjectivity...interesting...
Wonder if the MSM could muster such swirling overview of the facts? Who knows, since they refuse to bring it up. In light of your research, perhaps that is why FNC won't touch this, but it does drive the nail on the MSM's rabid "accuse all (Republican) stones" approach. If they intend to be reckless in one regard, why not the other? Report all implications, regardless of political color. Hey, wait a minute! I may be onto something here...human nature...racism...the MSM are racist thugs of political color!!! Of course! Why have I never seen this through that Liberal lens before? That must mean...I despise blue people!!! I'm a racist! Finally, I'm a racist!
Now that's objectivity!!
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
You know, this begs the quest
Sun, 01/28/2007 - 15:30 ET by bulletproofYou know, this begs the question...if a color-blind person claims to be a racist, are they really reliable?
Clinton Scandals
Mon, 01/29/2007 - 11:20 ET by pbanks7At this point I would wonder why the Clintons were shmoozing with, and accepting money from, yet another crook.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
mdokr
Mon, 01/29/2007 - 14:05 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
So this story lacks credibility because the plaintiff in this case is a convicted felon? Actually, doesn't that make it even more astounding that the media have totally ignored this for more than six years?
Let's understand that in 2000, this convicted felon had almost unlimited access to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and the first lady who was also campaigning to be a U.S. Senator. The Vice President, who was running for president, accepted campaign donations from this convicted felon. And, this same felon was the number one contributor to Hillary's senatorial campaign.
If the President, Vice President, first lady running for Senate, and the Secret Service weren't concerned with this felon's criminal record, why should we? On the other hand, if this is a concern, shouldn't the media focus on this aspect of the story rather than using his past as an excuse for burying it?
After all, the media have been quite fixated on finding connections between President Bush and Jack Abramoff. Shouldn't they be equally fascinated with connections between this convicted felon, a former president, a former vice president, and a current U.S. Senator that is now running for president?
Why the double standard, Mr. Mediocre? ns
mdokr
Mon, 01/29/2007 - 14:06 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
So this story lacks credibility because the plaintiff in this case is a convicted felon? Actually, doesn't that make it even more astounding that the media have totally ignored this for more than six years?
Let's understand that in 2000, this convicted felon had almost unlimited access to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and the first lady who was also campaigning to be a U.S. Senator. The Vice President, who was running for president, accepted campaign donations from this convicted felon. And, this same felon was the number one contributor to Hillary's senatorial campaign.
If the President, Vice President, first lady running for Senate, and the Secret Service weren't concerned with this felon's criminal record, why should we? On the other hand, if this is a concern, shouldn't the media focus on this aspect of the story rather than using his past as an excuse for burying it?
After all, the media have been quite fixated on finding connections between President Bush and Jack Abramoff. Shouldn't they be equally fascinated with connections between this convicted felon, a former president, a former vice president, and a current U.S. Senator that is now running for president?
Why the double standard, Mr. Mediocre? ns