Replies

Joseph Farah
Peter Paul and Hillary

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Maybe you missed it last week, but there was a significant development in the ongoing campaign to bring Bill and Hillary Clinton to justice.

Peter Franklin Paul was arrested in Brazil and is set for a rapid extradition to the United States to face stock fraud charges.

Stock fraud charges? What does this have to do with Bill and Hillary Clinton?

The case of Peter Paul may well tell us, once and for all, if there is indeed a chance for equal justice for all in America – or whether we have one standard of justice for the politically influential and another for everyone else.

Because, while the Justice Department seems eminently interested in prosecuting Peter Paul on charges of manipulating the stock price of a media company, so far, it has appeared less than motivated to investigate his own well-documented accusations that he made more than $2 million worth of in-kind contributions to benefit Hillary Clinton's successful New York Senate campaign – contributions that were never reported by the senator.

Further, it is clear from Peter Paul's lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court, that Peter Paul made his contributions with the understanding that he would get some very tangible benefits for doing so. Specifically, he alleges, he was promised:

the president's support for a Kennedy Center Honor for a business partner;
the president's support for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his business partner;
a reception at the White House for his business partner;
an official visit to his business office by the president;
a stay in the Lincoln bedroom;
a weekend at Camp David;
an invitation to the president's last official State Dinner at the White House;
the president's participation in the global broadcast of the Hollywood Christmas Parade, which his company produced;
In other words, Peter Paul wasn't contributing money to the Clintons' favorite cause du jour out of the goodness of his heart or because of his concern for the well-being of the republic. This was a quid pro quo. He was seeking a political payoff. In layman's terms, if not precise legal terms, he was seeking to bribe the president – as so many others, from my friend Johnny Chung to James Riady, did during Clinton's reign of cash-register governance.

You can read the Peter Paul lawsuit for yourself on the website of Judicial Watch, which is representing Peter Paul.

You should do so. It's a real eye-opener – especially for those of you who think you've seen the depths of political corruption and can no longer be shocked.

When you learn about this case, you will no doubt ask yourself how this could happen in America. How could someone like Peter Paul be ignored by the Justice Department when he's got the smoking-gun documents to nail Bill and Hillary?

And that is really the key question. Here's the answer: The Bush administration doesn't want to get involved in dredging the depths of Clinton administration corruption. Period. End of story. Politically, the president apparently believes, there is no gain in doing so.

Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are making political decisions instead of judgments made on the basis of their constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the land. They are fearful that actions against Bill and Hillary Clinton will be viewed through the prism of political vengeance. They fear such actions will come back to haunt them in the next election cycle and, perhaps, even sooner in the form of accountability for their own transgressions.

Our government, therefore, has become a mutual protection racket. I won't squeal on you if you won't squeal on me. And that's why America is only capable of offering political choices like "Tweedle-Dee" and "Tweedle-Dum."

The Peter Paul case may be our last chance to break this cycle. What can we do about it? The first step in solving a problem is always knowledge. You have to recognize the problem and see it clearly before it can be addressed.

I'm not going to tell you to write letters to Bush and Ashcroft. I'm not going to tell you to write to your congressional representatives. I am going to urge you to support Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch in their courageous and single-minded pursuit of justice in this matter.