Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu
NewsMax ^ | 6/24/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 06/25/2002 8:43:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

Monday, June 24, 2002 11:15 p.m. EDT

FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Déjà Vu

Ten years ago, L. Jean Lewis, an investigator with the government's Resolution Trust Corporation, was able to piece together a complicated Arkansas bank fraud conspiracy from a treasure trove documents she unearthed in an out-of-the-way Kansas City warehouse.

The result was the Whitewater scandal, which, after six years worth of twists and turns, ended in the first impeachment of an elected president in U.S. history.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign.

"The documents were seized in a May 30 raid of a California storage facility containing documents of Peter Paul, the entrepreneur who funded Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign with over $2 million dollars in direct, in-kind contributions which were never reported by Hillary Clinton or her Senate campaign, as required by law," revealed the public interest law firm Judicial Watch in a press release late last week.

The raid is important for two reasons. First, it may yield yet another treasure trove of evidence against the Clintons.

But the second reason may be even more significant. The Justice Department's continuing investigative interest in the Clintons comes despite news last week that the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, James Comey, decided to shut down a key part of the Pardongate probe.

Peter Paul and his Judicial Watch lawyers have been trying to persuade the Justice Department for the better part of two years to take his allegations seriously. But instead they seemed more intent on prosecuting him for stock fraud. That is, until now.

Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman suggested the raid may represent something of a turnabout in thinking among Attorney General John Ashcroft and his colleagues.

"Mr. Paul could have turned the documents about the Clintons over to the FBI months ago under a cooperation agreement," Klayman noted. "Instead, he waits in a Brazilian dungeon for the Ashcroft Justice Department to get serious about this corruption case. So it is a welcome sign that the Justice Department is turning up the heat on this new crime scandal concerning the Clintons."

The FBI raid may also be a sign that the reported no prosecution deal for the Clintons, demanded by Democrat leaders as the price for President Bush getting some of his legislative agenda implemented, is beginning to unravel - since Democrats seem to have kept little if any of their part of the bargain. (See: Bush Insider Claims Clinton Deal Torpedoed Pardongate)

"The search warrant authorizing the FBI raid of the storage facility specifically references the Clintons and the New York Senate campaign," says Judicial Watch.

"The search warrant authorizes the seizure of: Records relating to New York Senate 2000, the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton, the Federal Election Commission, David Rosen and Aaron Tonken... (David Rosen was the Director of Finance for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and Aaron Tonken is a Democrat fundraiser who raised money for the Clintons. Both men have knowledge of Mr. Paul's contributions.)"

Meanwhile, Peter Paul awaits a Justice Department offer of legal leniency in exchange for his further cooperation in the Clinton case.

If he returns to the U.S. anytime soon, it could be a sign that for Hillary Clinton, it's deja vu all over again.



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fbi; hillary; raid; warehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: ravingnutter
All of which may be true. Once again, people on here seem to think that somehow, stating that financial scandals had nothing to do with what Clinton was impeached for is equivalent to stating that I defend/justify what Clinton did. They also seem to think that stating that he wasn't convicted of any crimes (unless the plea bargain that ended up with a $25,000 fine and suspension of his law license counts as such) means I think he didn't commit any. There's a reason why courts declare people "not guilty" instead of "innocent". I, at least, understand the distinction.
61 posted on 06/26/2002 8:18:45 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mcenedo
"The fact that the Clinton's were not convicted for crimes relating to Whitewater in no way esatblishes their innocence."

How obvious. Perhaps you could quote any statement I made that said that I thought they were innocent.

"Your defense of the Clinton's is as justifyable as those that cheered when Gotti walked, or when OJ got his pass."

Quote where I've defended Clinton's conduct (instead of simply pointing out his legal record), while you're at it.

"Screw you. (Freeper since when???)"

Your logic and reasoning overwhelm me. Clearly, in the face of such authority, I'm in error.

62 posted on 06/26/2002 8:23:39 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RonF
On what basis do you presume that the Clintons are my pals? Because I don't see how one draws a causative connection between Bill's sexual offenses and the financial offenses at Whitewater? Bill did what he did, but one really has nothing to do with the other.

I classify you as "a pal" of the Clintons because you are apparently one of their myriad enablers.

Since you are also apparently too lazy to do it for yourself, I'm going to give you the nutshell version:

For most of his public life, Clinton was a member of the executive branch of government. For a lazy guy like you, I'll translate: Clinton was "law enforcement".

Bill Clinton, law enforcement guy, committed a number of felonious acts during his public tenure. Since he was a law enforcement guy, and due to the nature of the Arkansas Democrat political machine, it was easy for him to avoid any legal entanglements for these felonious acts. (It wasn't so easy for his brother Roger, also famous for the quote "nose like a vacuum cleaner" - additional Clintonian felonious activity, BTW).

Once Bubba ascended to his new law enforcement throne in Washington, questions about felonious activity back home in Arkansas arose (Whitewater). Fortunately for King Bill, the Arkansas Democrat political machine was able to deal with most of the nattering questions of the Puritan, sex-obsessed prosecutor Starr and troublesome people like Judge David Hale. They did have to actually sacrifice some law enforcement people like Governor Jim Guy Tucker and Webb Hubbell.

In Washington, the Democrat media, staffed with stalwart liberal apologists like Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, did the rest. They turned the questions about Whitewater, the White House travel office, FBI agent Aldrich's book, Vince Foster's death, Webb Hubbell's corruption, the missing billing records - the "thread running through it", serial felonious activity by a career law enforcement official, now the TOP law enforcement official in the United States, into "a scandal about Clinton's private sex life". Even that was a lie, because sex in the Oval Office is by definition public sex.

=================================
For a good part of two decades, Al Capone remained absolutely immune to prosecution for any and all of his criminal activities. In June 1930, Capone was finally indicted not on a murder charge, bootlegging or for any of his other seriously criminal undertakings but on a much lesser charge of federal income tax evasion.

Thus one of the most notorious criminals of the 20th century was imprisoned for tax evasion. All of the resources of the American police, FBI and other federal authorities failed to collect any evidence to prove that Al Capone was a dangerous criminal. At the end of the day, he had to be imprisoned for evading federal income taxes.
=================================

Imagine if Capone had been commander of "all of the resources of the American police, FBI and other federal authorities", as Clinton and her husband were. The IRS would have sat up and barked for ol' Al, like Margaret Milner Richardson did for Big Bill when her IRS investigated and audited Clinton's political opponents and critics.

Bill did what he did, but one really has nothing to do with the other.

This is an untrue statement. Clinton's obstruction of justice and perjury in front of a federal judge and a grand jury are part and parcel of a seamless "webb" (**snicker**) of serial felonious criminal activity by a career law enforcement official who couldn't be touched because of the corrupt nature and structure of today's American politics.

Many of us anonymous posters on this site and other websites took notice of the activities of this "untouchable" criminal - but we're not the important observers.

The dangerous watchers were the totalitarian power addicts in America who duly noted the ways and means of acquiring and exercising the power of Clinton's kind of "law enforcement" - and the fact that he and his wife were untouched by investigations into their blatant criminal activity. Don't think we won't see more of this kind of activity in the future.

Neither he nor his wife have been charged in anything.

Just remember that Joseph Stalin was never charged for murder during his lifetime by the Russian government. Does that mean he murdered no one? ;-)

63 posted on 06/26/2002 8:45:31 AM PDT by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Your logic and reasoning overwhelm me. Clearly, in the face of such authority, I'm in error.

I'm glad we agree.

64 posted on 06/26/2002 9:03:57 AM PDT by mcenedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Are you Ron Fornier, the reporter for the LA Times(or is it the AP now?) who usually is quite selective in what you report about Bush(mainly negative) and Clinton(omitting most relevant details, facts, and lines of inquiry)?


65 posted on 06/26/2002 10:24:58 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Negatory. Outside of a (literally) couple of letters to the Editor, I've never had anything published in a newspaper.
66 posted on 06/26/2002 10:39:39 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Well, that's two more than I've had published!

Thanks for responding.
67 posted on 06/26/2002 10:53:04 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
One was about making voter registration simpler. I held forth the viewpoint that it was simple enough to walk/drive/ride to your local city hall to register. If people aren't willing to do that little effort to register, what effort are they likely to put into actually becoming informed enough to cast an intelligent vote, or even to vote, period? And this was *before* "motor voter" came up.

The other was when my Scout Troop got it's sponsorship dropped by the local Park District (atheists vote too, I was told). A story was published on the matter, and I had to write a letter almost as long as the original article to correct statements of fact. To the paper's credit, they published my letter, unedited.
68 posted on 06/26/2002 11:16:42 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton surely hopes that history isn't repeating itself with the raid conducted by the FBI last month on another warehouse; this one chock full of documents from her 2000 Senatorial campaign.

We all know that she bought some votes. (Even if we do not have the actual facts.)

Finding some evidence that taints Hillary's record would be great news! Re: Running for president.

69 posted on 06/26/2002 11:19:54 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
One can only hope...
70 posted on 06/26/2002 11:26:53 AM PDT by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RonF
bump
71 posted on 06/29/2002 12:38:08 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
bump
72 posted on 07/01/2002 10:27:50 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
bttt
73 posted on 07/01/2002 1:34:43 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
bump
74 posted on 07/03/2002 8:18:10 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bump
75 posted on 07/24/2002 11:55:51 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: timestax
I love it when you re-bump articles! Sometimes we forget!
76 posted on 07/24/2002 11:59:39 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
bump
77 posted on 07/25/2002 11:22:28 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RonF
bump
78 posted on 07/25/2002 11:25:46 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bump
79 posted on 07/27/2002 11:32:42 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
bump
80 posted on 07/29/2002 7:21:36 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson