Posted on 05/10/2005 6:06:14 AM PDT by wagglebee
Former Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, whose allegations spurred a four-year FBI probe into an August 2000 fundraiser for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton that resulted in the indictment of her then-finance chairman, David Rosen, said Monday that he intends to have Mrs. Clinton to testify in a related civil lawsuit he filed.
"It's critical to get Hillary under oath," Paul told Fox News Radio host Tony Snow, "because it appears that the government won't call her as a witness at David Rosen's trial." In a trial that begins today, Rosen faces three counts of lying to federal regulators about the amount Mr. Paul spent on expenses for the event.
Mr. Paul called Sen. Clinton's testimony "a critical component" in the process of uncovering the truth behind the Aug. 12, 2000 gala, as well as two other fundraisers he produced for the former first lady.
He said his lawsuit, now in the discovery phase, will cover a broad range of allegations, explaining: "There's a variety of crimes involved that the American public can relate to beyond election law."
Some people just seem to have a deathwish.
The fix is in.
She'll laugh while committing perjury.
Can't they find somebody more credible to lead the charge against Hillary than an ex-cocaine addict, communist sympathesizer, and con artist like Peter Paul?
Honestly, from my perspective, what we should really be highlighting is that the Clintons stooped so low as to associate with this type of shady character.
This all smells like a trap to me. Have Peter Paul organize the opposition to her, and build a high profile in the media (like SBVT). Then a mysterious file is handed to the NY Times, exposing some sort of illicit activity by Peter Paul, and Hillary's critics are "discredited."
Asking Hillary to tell the truth is like, like....well, it's just pure fantasy.
That would be the first time Hillary's been "under" anything since Vince Foster went toes up. Even if she's made to testify, she'll not recall anything and somehow redirect questioning into political rhetoric. She'll also be under medical care at the time for possible breast cancer, and female plumbing treatments which until now we thought was limited to warm blooded mamals.
There are probably a few videos out there of Hitlery laying out the "options" for her "friends" as they prepare to testify.
I think we all know what happens when Hillary testifies: "I don't recall....um, well...um...I don't recall....um....again... I don't recall...."
No, they can't, because THESE are the type of people the Clinton's surround themselves with.
Except that starts getting a lot harder to do in a civil trial, it's very different from a criminal trial. Also, this will be the first time that the Hildabeast won't have any chance of using executive privilege.
Yeah ... that's it ... under oath. Hillary (zero recall) Clinton wouldn't dare lie under oath.
yeah ,... I've had this feeling for a while , that God has been giving them plenty of rope , there are many of them and they'll need all that rope
She is to important to do something as mundane as appear at this witch hunt. Witch Hunt?
I agree. His credibility is going to cause a backfire here. I can see the dems somehow flipping this around and Hillary will come out smelling like a rose. It's obvious he's out to bring her down.
What good would it do to have Hillary testify. She wouldn't be able to remember a thing!
myway1
Peter Paul may have a lot of skeletons in his closet (although compared to the Klintoons, he's a saint). Here's what I think is significant here, Peter Paul is the first Klintoon "insider" who is refusing to take all of the blame and is pointing fingers at BJ and Hitlery.
Bwaahaaahaaaa!
"... I have no specific recollection..."
"... I do not remember..."
"... I cannot recall..."
"... this does not sound familiar to me..."
"... it was so long ago I..."
"... I cannot remember..."
In other words, Hillary on the stand is a waste of time.
"Can't they find somebody more credible to lead the charge against Hillary than an ex-cocaine addict, communist sympathesizer, and con artist like Peter Paul?"
Methinks he might actually be legit. Could be he does know where a body or two are buried and is doing this media thing to prevent an Arkancide. His.
:)
First, Peter Paul may be a scumbag, but he was able to convince a judge that his case was worth taking to court.
Second, this is a two pronged assault, with the David Rosen trial just getting under way.
Finally, if Paul actually does get Rodham to take the stand--a spectical in and of itself--her forgetfulness will do her more harm than good.
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.