Skip to comments.(Paul v Clinton) Hillary caught telling some truth in sworn declaration
Posted on 06/21/2007 7:54:28 PM PDT by doug from upland
NOTE: since mainstream media reporters either don't understand Paul v Clinton and the Clinton campaign finance frauds or simply are too lazy to do their homework, we are pleased to be of assistance so that they can do some real reporting.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters at parsing words. They create just enough doubt so that they avoid legal jeopardy. Finally, however, it appears that Hillary might have made a major mistake.
On April 7, 2006, I was in Los Angeles Superior courtroom of judge Aurelio Munoz. On that day, David Kendall, the man who has been known to sit on his briefcase to appear taller in his seat, presented Hillary Clinton's sworn declaration to the court in the civil case Paul v Clinton.
She tried to be very careful with her language.
"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."
In that seemingly innocuous statement, she made an admission that Team Hillary has been denying for six years. "...fundraiser for my Senate campgaign." That was an amazing statement because Hillary's counsel has been maintaining all along that Peter Paul's in-kind contribution of over $1.6 million for the Hollywood Gala was a soft money donation. She actually admitted in that declaration that the fundraiser was for her Senate campaign ---- NOT FOR A JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE.
That admission is stunning. In this document," her legal counsel said the following:
Sept. 28, 2001
RYAN, PHILLIPS, UTRECHT & MACKINNON
Complainant specifically alleges that he made contributions of $1.9 million, both cash and in-kind, to the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee and that the committee "improperly and/or inaccurately reported" the contributions. The evidence cited by Complainant, however, directly contradicts his claim. The August 12,2000 event was a joint findraiser held by New York Senate 2000, it was not a Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee event. Any payments for costs associated with the event made by third parties would be in-kind contributions to the joint fundraising committee. Complainant alleges, without any evidence supporting his claim, that he "personally financed the entire event." His contribution then, if it were actually made, would have been an in-kind contribution to the joint fundraising committee - not the Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee. Neither Senator Clinton, nor her campaign committee were responsible for reporting contributions made to New York Senate 2000. And New York Senate 2000 would not be responsible for reporting contributions from Complainant that were not made.
Lyn Utrecht and James Lamb (signed by Lyn Utrecht)
Now, let me help you mainstream media journalists so you understand what this all means. Pay attention. Hillary has admitted in a sworn declaration that the Hollywood Gala was for her Senate campaign. That meant that all of the money spent by Peter Paul in excess of $2,000 WAS ILLEGAL. He actually had given a $2,000 check at the Spago lunch he sponsored (so did his wife). Howard Wolfson, Hillary's lying weasel spokesman, was trotted out a few days after the Gala and made a public pronouncement that the $2,000 was being returned. Of course, after Peter's two decades old involvement in the Cuban Coffee Caper was revealed, they would take no money from Peter Paul.
The depositions should indeed be very interesting. We are getting closer. It is easy to misspeak, and we all occasionally do that. It is less easy to make an error while writing. When you swear to a declaration, however, there is no room for misspeaking or making an error. Hillary thought it out carefully and, although she didn't mean to do it, she told the truth in that sentence. The fundraiser was for her Senate campaign.
It will also be interesting to see what the attorneys will say who claimed that the money from Peter Paul was for the joint committee, not Hillary's Senate campaign. In an official communication to a government agency that was conducting an official investigation, did they deliberately lie? That would be a felony and subject them to being prosecuted and disbarred.
On Tuesday, you are going to see the full 5-minute video of the conference call between Hillary, Peter, Stan Lee, and Aaron Tonken. The short teaser version is here. Hillary helped solicit and coordinate the Gala. Over $1.6 million was a hard money donation from its inception. It was illegal from its inception. It is the largest campaign finance fraud in history.Journalists, I hope that has been helpful. We done much of your work for you. Write the damn story!
Note the clever, lawyerly use of the passive voice. He "was asked" leaves open the question of who asked him to produce the event. Perhaps it was the same person who hired Craig Livingstone.
I do to. This is LA.
NOTHING OTHER THAN DISMISSAL.
Great work Doug, REALLY...but I just couldn’t let this statement go by without noting the hilarious picture it put in my head:
“David Kendall, the man who has been known to sit on his briefcase to appear taller in his seat...”
I need to stop reading stuff like this with a mouth full of coffee...it nearly came out my nose!! LMAO!! R e a l l y??? One of Hillary’s lawyers needs a booster seat?
Now that I’ve, er, calmed down a bit and wiped the tears from my eyes and the coffee off my monitor, I must say that this new information is very interesting. Thank you, Doug!
I enjoy reading your posts. Keep ‘em coming.
I'm jazzed. Rock on!
And Scooter is going to jail...hmmm!
Gary Smith was a good friend of hers. Peter wanted to use his friend Dick Clark. In the Rosen trial, her name was never uttered, but there was testimony that someone want to use Smith for the concert. We are going to get to the bottom of it. In the Rosen trial, the prosecutor kept getting very close to asking the right questions that would damage her but they backed off every single time.
In this case, Hillary very clearly said the event was for her Senate campaign. It indeed was. The donor intended that. Hillary has finally been caught telling the truth.
I am afraid she might be released from the case and awarded damages. This is LA afterall.
WORLD NET DAILY HAS THE 5 MINUTES UP NOW — http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56305
Ah geez! Too funny!
Thanks for the pictures. Reminder to self: No more coffee when reading Free Republic!
Doug, you are page 1 at Pajamas Media and Michele Malkin!
And Michele calls it a felony!
Thanks. My own YouTube presentation of this with background and commentary will be up soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.