Posted on 10/16/2007 6:45:39 PM PDT by doug from upland
DFU NOTE: the power that Hillary has already consolidated should be evident to all. She really has compromised all three branches of the government. The video evidence referenced below was withheld by a Clintonista in the US Atty's office for several years while official investigations were ongoing.
And then consider how Sandy Berger got off the hook with a wrist slap and 100 pages of IRS abuses are kept under seal in the Barrett Report. It really is frightening.
=====================================================================
Hillary’s “Crime On Tape” Protected By CA Appellate Court
In a ruling handed down today on whether Hillary Clinton should be given first amendment protection for civil frauds she committed to fund her US Senate campaign, a three judge California appellate panel, including two appointees by Gov Gray Davis who had worked in the same law firm together representing the ACLU, ruled that it would not allow newly released video evidence capturing Hillary in election law violations because:
“Because it would be inappropriate for us to decide on appeal whether Senator Clinton or Clinton for Senate violated federal law in connection with the solicitation of Paul’s in-kind contributions, Paul’s motion to admit a videotaped recording of a July 17, 2000 telephone call among Paul, Stan Lee and Senator Clinton in which they discuss the Hollywood Tribute and his request for judicial notice related to this issue are denied.”
The court also denied consideration (judicial notice) of court testimony by admitted Clinton agent to Paul, Jim Levin, who testified that he was delegated by the Clintons to initiate the illegal campaign solicitation from him on their behalf.
Paul v Clinton will now proceed against the remaining defendants, former President Bill Clinton, Grammys producer gary Smith and strip club owner James Levin, who exhausted their appeals to the California Supreme Court in 2004 and their trial date for March, 2007 will now be reset for 2008 with Hillary Clinton guaranteed by the judge to be required to testify under oath as a material witness.
” Paul’s motion to admit a videotaped recording of a July 17, 2000 telephone call among Paul, Stan Lee and Senator Clinton in which they discuss the Hollywood Tribute”
Is this statement really in the court’s opinion?
"Today the California appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Peter Paul's complaint against Sen. Clinton," said the former first lady's attorney David Kendall. "The court relied upon earlier findings by the Federal Election Commission which found no evidence of misconduct by Sen. Clinton in regard to the 2000 fundraiser."
Yes, David, the court relied on earlier findings by the FEC. They never called key witnesses and Hillary's pal in the US Atty's office withheld evidence during their investigation.
...and the hits just keep on coming...
ping
Stunned beyond words.
I think impeachment proceedings or whatever might be possible should be instituted against those judges.
This is beyond outrageous. This is a screaming admission of corruption, felonies etc. at the highest levels with the judges now giving the finger to all the citizens of the USA.
Sad to read it.
And outraged.
Please let us know what form our activism can and should take next.
Can this be appealed to the Supreme Court?
Where she will take the 5th and refuse to say anything but her name when sworn in.
I haven’t read the whole thing.
“Because it would be inappropriate for us to decide on appeal whether Senator Clinton or Clinton for Senate violated federal law in connection with the solicitation of Paul’s in-kind contributions,.....”
Inappropriate? They just didn’t want to do it.
I’m not stunned. Two ACLU attorneys were on this three-judge panel. We hoped that they would keep her in as a defendant, but it will be okay. The significance of being able to get her under oath cannot be overemphasized.
A BIG DFU PING!!!
Interesting. According to her widely acclaimed bodice ripper about Bubba's affair with Monica, Bill is such a devout coward that he got David Kendall (the same David Kendall mentioned in this article) to tell her the truth about his affair when he could no longer deny the facts of the evidence. It would seem to me to be a huge violation of trust that should have gotten him canned as their attorney. Of course, in her bodice ripper account of the story, David Kendall was BILL'S attorney at that time, NOT hers. I suspect that there's a lot more going on between the three of them.
so why is is “inappropriate’ for the court to “decide on appeal”?
What reason is given?
Not that it matters. The courts are corrupt and full of liberal scum.
Just like the media, who doesn’t mention a word about the Clinton’s and their numerous crimes. If this were a Republican, media would front page this stuff until the Republican was either hanged, or sent to prison for life, and even then they’d dedicate front page to the issues for weeks after.
But this is their queen. therefore the cone of silence is lowered. The sheeple must never learn the truth.
Besides, people would then start wondering why media has been covering this up for so long.
Of course spineless Republicans in the house and senate make it all the easier.
Pray;
God help this country
Amen.
So I guess this case is now over?
Maybe they are thinking like the New Jersey Supreme Court did when they let Frank Lautenberg on the ballot, going against the New Jersey State Constitution. ‘It is the interest of the New Jersey voters to have a choice from both major parties’. Corruption complete!
Its amazing how flexible the law is in liberal hands isn’t it?
No, it is not over. Amazingly, Hillary remains protected by the California anti-SLAPP law. The case continues against Bill, Jim Levin, and Gary Smith. This is going to court, and she is finally going to be under oath.
I wonder if I’m reading this right, they will not allow the video tape in evidence during the trial?
I thought this was just about whether she would be a defendant. I understand the part about her being under oath.
I hadn’t heard about the IRS Barrett report.
Obviously, the MSM is ignoring it - what do you know?
No, the Appellate Court did not want to consider it as evidence in the appeal regarding Hillary. It will indeed be part of the trial as will several more hours of home video of Hillary. Peter has evidence no one has ever had before.
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.