Silly little people! Hillary’s above your foolish “laws”

Can someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton still gets away with this stuff? Why aren’t the Republican candidates hammering her? We’re talking about felonies here.

Hat tip: Hot Air

  1. Sorry, looks like you’ve been drinking the “Hate Hillary at all costs” cool-aid a little too much again. This appears to be another swift-boat type send up where the person making the allegations (and the very slick video) is a convicted felon with a clear axe to grind against the Clintons (at one point in the video, he personally blames them for his company going belly-up), and the “talking head pundits” in the video who are there to “support” the foundation of the allegations are not exactly unbiased. One tried and failed to bring down her husband on the impeachment charges while another is a slick lawyer for the “American Civil Rights Union” (the ultra-right’s pathetic attempt to counter the ACLU). John Armor (the ACRU Congressional Legal Expert cited in the video) is trying to put himself into the armor of the conservative right, and what better way to do that than to appear in a sure to be popular video attacking Hillary as a criminal. Since he is running for congress to try to unseat Heath Shuler (that’s right, the former quarterback of the Washington Redskins) he has a clear personal interest in this moving forward. David Schippers (the Clinton Impeachment Manager) works for Judicial Watch (another Clinton loving organization) and wrote a book called “Sellout – The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.” Again, not exactly who I would want to be making an unbiased argument supporting the charges. The third talking head who makes some of the biggest claims isn’t even cited. We don’t even know who he is, or what his background is to be making the claims! These charges have been out there for over six years now. If there was any substance, it would have already come out.

  2. Are you disputing the allegations made by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth?
    I’d also like to remind you that even people with strong opinions (or “axes to grind” as you call them) can be correct. Impartiality is not a prerequisite for truthfulness.
    Other than criticizing Paul and company’s lack of saintly detachment, what have you got?

  3. This post was supposed to be about Hillary, but we’ll start with the first question you asked.
    Am I disputing the allegations made by the Swift Boat Vets…a group synonymous in today’s media with false allegations? That would be a very big YES, since John Kerry’s actual personal boat crew came to his defense on both his conduct and medals. Since these were the guys that actually served with him and observed first hand his behavior, they were in the best position to refute the charges, which they did. The Swift Boat Vets 527 also paid a fine of $300,000 in a settlement with the FEC in 2006 for election law violations in 2004 due to the campaign they ran against John Kerry.
    As far as the person with the “axe to grind,” he was convicted in 2005 for SEC violations that defrauded his investors and financial institutions of over $25 Million dollars. He fled the country in 2001 to avoid that trial and conviction, and it was only after his attempts to prevent his extradition from Brazil failed that he was forcibly returned to the country to face the music. You can’t even make the argument that this was his first felony conviction, it was his third. This individual is not exactly the poster child for integrity and moral standing. On the other side, you have a sitting US Senator and a former US President who haven’t been convicted of any wrongdoing, ever. As far as his “talking heads” are concerned, I already outlined their own personal motivations above, which makes their take on the truth suspect.
    Final argument. This case has already been adjudicated…several times. In every instance, Paul lost. He filed an ethics complaint with the US Senate against Clinton, it was tossed by the Senate Ethics Committee in 2002 (in a Republican controlled Senate). He filed a lawsuit (represented by Judicial Watch) against the FEC for failing to hold Clinton accountable on the same charges, it was tossed. He personally sued the Clintons for fraud associated with the fundraiser in question, that was tossed. He appealed, which is what the whole point of this argument (and video) is about. The appelate court returned a ruling yesterday…reaffirming the lower courts argument that the case had no merit. My thought on this is that this is another case of Hillary bashing, and Peter Paul is hoping to “Cash In” with the sale of his video and speaking engagements to the ultra-conservative “Hate Hillary at All Costs” groups to both enrich himself and attempt to rebuild his tarnished reputation by deflecting criticism at her (he is already being hailed as “the courageous wistleblower”).
    One more thought. The “damning” video evidence that he presents, it is clear that the only thing you can glean from it is that Hillary is calling Peter Paul and Stan Lee to thank them for setting up this big tribute to her husband. At no point in the video does she collude about raising money or anything else. It is clear that Paul and Lee are bending over themselves to kiss her butt and tell her about this wonderful event they set up for her and the president. Not exactly the cannon fodder everyone wants it to be. There is a reason why the MSM is not bothering to report this.

Comments are closed.