WND EXCLUSIVE
FILM WILL MAKE VIEWERS JURY IN 'HILLARY TRIAL'
Buried among scandals is 'biggest-ever case of campaign-finance fraud'
Art Moore
From Whitewater to Travelgate to “Bimbo eruptions” to Benghazi and much more, Hillary Clinton has managed to survive scandal, but it’s time for the people to serve as her “judge and jury,” contend the makers of a new documentary.
Now in production and scheduled for release during the general election campaign, “Hillary Clinton: Above the Law” will seek to “indict and prosecute” Clinton in “the court of public opinion” for alleged crimes and obstruction of justice, including the “biggest case of campaign finance fraud in U.S. history.”
The producers, led by Douglas Cogan, are raising funds for the documentary through the website Indiegogo.
Using a court trial format, they plan to “present the issues, introduce the facts (some successfully sequestered from the public records by the Clintons and their operatives), clarify the evidence and leave the verdict for you, the people, to decide.”
Cogan is the producer of the 2008 documentary “Hillary Uncensored,” which featured the lawsuit by No. 1 donor Peter F. Paul against the Clintons that resulted in the indictment of Hillary Clinton’s finance director and her campaign being fined by the Federal Elections Commission, along with an admission of failing to report contributions from Paul of more than $800,000.
Hillary Clinton herself, however, has never been held accountable, the filmmakers argue, pointing out that she admitted in the civil suit that she received campaign contributions exceeding $700,000 that were not reported.
A 13-minute promotional video of “Hillary Uncensored” went viral on the Web and became the No. 1 Google video for three months in late 2007 when Clinton was the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. By September 2008, it had been viewed more than 21 million times in the U.S. and U.K., according to Cogan.
The Paul fundraisers were also featured in the Citizens United film “Hillary: The Movie,” which was central to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court campaign-finance case, Citizens United v. FEC.
As WND reported in 2005 Clinton was named in the lawsuit brought by Paul for allegedly directing to her 2000 Senate campaign an illegal, in-kind contribution from Paul that included two smaller fundraisers and a lavish, A-list, million-dollar-plus Hollywood gala honoring her husband, President Bill Clinton. At the trial of Clinton’s finance director for the 2000 senatorial campaign, David Rosen, the government told the jury Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to produce the events.
Pattern of control
The cinematic prosecution presented in “Hillary Above the Law” aims to show a pattern of controlling people, information and the government to keep Clinton out of court.
Juanita Broaddrick claims she was raped by Bill Clinton
More recently, evidence has surfaced that Clinton used her position as secretary of state to financially benefit the family’s Clinton Foundation, which in turn, according to an extensive probe by a Wall Street analyst, has been used to personally enrich the Clintons and their associates.
Also, Hillary Clinton still has not addressed the many accusations of women who say she was behind a campaign of intimidation and harassment against them after they accused her husband of sexual impropriety or assault. Many of her husband’s accusers have resurfaced since she tweeted in November that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”
Clinton was applauded by establishment media in October for emerging without major political damage from the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing in October, despite the presentation of evidence that contradicted previous statements and testimony. Emails and memos, for example, showed she knew immediately that murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans was the result of a planned terrorist attack and not a more politically palatable spontaneous protest that turned violent.
Currently, there is speculation over how the Department of Justice will treat an FBI investigation into her handling of classified intelligence through a private email server while she was secretary of state. Insiders believe the FBI will refer it to Attorney Loretta Lynch for indictment, but the Obama administration can decide not to prosecute.
WND reported last spring when the email scandal emerged that Paul had home video of a lunch conversation he had with Hillary Clinton in which she suggested a possible motivation for not using an official government email server.
“As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I – I don’t even want – why would I ever want to do email?” Clinton said at the June 9, 2000, fundraiser at the exclusive Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills, California, co-hosted by Paul.
See Hillary Clinton discuss emailing in June 2000:
'Public's right to know'
Peter Paul's suit against the Clintons – which drew coverage from ABC's "20/20" then largely disappeared from establishment media – alleged they sabotaged the media company Paul formed with comic-book legend Stan Lee to get out of a $17 million agreement made with Bill Clinton to serve as an international promoter for the company after he left the White House.
Hillary Clinton and Peter Paul (Courtesy Peter Paul)
In the trial against Clinton's finance director Rosen in 2005, U.S. Attorney Daniel Schwager said in his final arguments that the case "is about the public’s right to know who is paying how much to their elected officials."
"The case is about the public’s right to know how much Peter Paul is paying to a national campaign," Schwager said. "… This case is about the public’s right to know the truth, and the defendant, David Rosen’s, continued and intentional obstruction of that public right."
The Clinton-appointed judge in the Rosen case and the DOJ prosecutor began the trial with statements that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the matter being tried, which the media used to report she had a lack of knowledge.
But the Department of Justice never released key video evidence indicating Hillary Clinton took an active role in the Hollywood gala. WND reported in 2007 that video of a July 2000 phone call showed Clinton's participation in soliciting performers and planning the event, which would make Paul's more than $1.2 million in contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than to a joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.
See the video of the July 2000 phone call:
The video was one of 90 that Paul was ordered to turn over to the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York in 2001 as part of the investigation in a related securities case against him. Because it was not released until 2007, it has never been used as evidence, despite its relevance to the key question of Clinton's involvement in the Hollywood fundraiser.
Longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall filed a reply brief to the submission of the video evidence, contending, "To the extent that it is authentic, the videotape shows that Senator Clinton is gracious to her supporters, that she has a sense of humor, and nothing more."
But Paul's defense argued Kendall's reply failed to address the central point that Clinton directly solicited the funds and applied some control over them, in violation of section 441 of the Federal Election Commission code.
The code says: "Expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate or their agents shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate," and, therefore, subject to limits.
In addition, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was quoted in a Washington Post story saying the event cost more than $1.1 million and that it was an in-kind contribution.
Paul then filed an FEC complaint that resulted in an admission that Clinton's treasurer, Andrew Grossman, not Rosen, hid the more than $750,000 of the contribution in the campaign's FEC filing.
After nine years of litigation, the Clintons entered into a confidential settlement of the civil fraud suit with Paul, sparing them from having to testify and ensuring Paul would be unable to discuss the matter publicly.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/film-will-make-viewers-jury-in-hillary-trial/#41v3SbRiU6y7I1Fb.99
No comments:
Post a Comment