For those who have followed the story, the civil judge recently used "bad grammar" in the original complaint by Judicial Watch to rule that the statute of limitations had run on Paul v Clinton.
During the 2005 criminal trial of Hillary campaign finance chairman, David Rosen (the trial that was fixed by Clinton-appointed corrupt judge A. Howard Matz), government prosecutor David Zeidenberg said the following:
“denying the public’s right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s Senate campaign”.
As many of you know:
1. Hillary directly joined in the solicitation of Peter's contribution
2. She has never reported him as the real donor
3. She admitted in a sworn declaration that the Hollywood Gala was for "my Senate campaign" (not for a joint fundraiser)
4. She had lying weasel Howard Wolfson tell the Washington Post and the entire world that she wouldn't accept any money from Peter Paul
5. She has filed four false FEC reports, the latest of which was Dec. 2006.
6. She participated in directly soliciting Cher (caught on tape) and Diana Ross performances for the concert.
7. She directed others to directly solicit over a million dollars in-kind from Peter ---- making anything over $2,000 AN ILLEGAL HARD MONEY DONATION 8. There have been three demands for Hillary to return the illegal donation, the latest of which was delivered to her office and captured on film by FReepers
The hearing for Hillary is pure and simple nothing more than a sham. NY TIMES "journalist" Charlie Savage wrote a story about a $100,000 donation to Hillary that was a play for pay. He and Peter spoke. Savage will not write about this $1.2 million play for pay.
I also spoke with Senator Specter's staff at the Judiciary Committee to make them aware of the $250 million fund Marc Rich had established to get the pardon from Bill Clinton. How much did Clinton really get? As the spouse, Hillary was entitled to half. The attorney at Judicary told me that Specter is very serious about raising hell over the Rich pardon.
Is there an honest mainstream media journalist left in America? Is there a United States Senator with an (R) after his name who has enough testicular fortitude to do the right thing and actually ask the tough questions?
deep down, i think that this action by google is not a surprise to you.
power and influence in the information age.