Patterico's Pontifications


A Timely Reminder of Just the Sort of People the Clintons Are

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:15 am

[guest post by JVW]

By way of Powerline comes this video from an episode of the television news show 20/20 which I believe dates back to 2002 or 2003. It features a Democrat mega-donor named Peter Paul who claims to have spent $1.5 million hosting a fund-raising gala for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate race with the expectation that outgoing President Bill Clinton would help him with his business interests. The segment lasts about eleven minutes and is well worth the watch:

Let’s get something out upfront. Peter Paul is a felon, a fraudster and hustler, a man who has been imprisoned three times: once for cocaine distribution in the 1970s, once for using a false identity to enter into Canada, and again for securities fraud after his dalliance with the Clinton Crime Family. But that only leads one to ask how someone so notorious could ever have been brought so close into the Clintons’ orbit. As Paul himself points out in the video, the Secret Service absolutely knew of his past and presumably communicated it to his coveted patrons, who clearly didn’t care one whit about Paul’s ethics and morals provided that his checks cleared. Hillary Clinton later returned a $2,000 campaign contribution from Paul, according to the 20/20 segment that appears to be only a fraction of what Paul contributed to her campaign.

One of the most distasteful memories from this video is the obnoxious nexus of Baby Boomer Hollywood and the Clintons, which will inevitably be back in play should Hillary be elected and aging entertainers return for a unwelcome curtain call. Paul’s lawsuits against the Clintons ended up going nowhere, but they should serve as a reminder to us all of the sordid and sleazy people who inhabit Clinton, Inc.


31 Responses to “A Timely Reminder of Just the Sort of People the Clintons Are”

  1. OT: Holy moly, Erdely guilty “defamation, with actual malice!” There is balm in Gilead after all.

    gp (0c542c)

  2. It’s not so much the Clintons themselves–there are only three of them. It’s the thousands of hangers-on who in turn have their thousands of hangers-on. Most of them are in the government now, doing Hillary’s bidding now. Trump has not yet built a legion of tax-eating parasites eager to do his bidding for a tiny amount of power over other.

    The real issue is whether in the future we will have open discussion of political issues and free elections. Think about what we have now — a federal bureaucracy that is fiercely partisan. An IRS that tries to regulate speech by denying on a partisan basis tax-exempt status to conservative organizations. A Department of State that hides the fact that its head is not observing the rules to which everyone else is held concerning security of communications and that colludes with a Presidential campaign to prevent the release of embarrassing information. A Department of Justice that ought to be renamed as the Department of Injustice, which does its level best to suppress investigations that might embarrass the likely nominee of the Democratic Party. An assistant attorney general that gives a “heads up” to that lady’s campaign. An Attorney General who meets on the sly with her husband shortly before the decision is made whether she is to be indicted. A federal department that promotes racial strife and hostility to the police in the interests of solidifying for the Democrats the African-American vote.

    Think about what else we have now — a press corps that colludes with a campaign, allowing figures in the Clinton campaign to edit what they publish. Television reporters who send the questions apt to be asked at the presidential debates to one campaign. A media that is totally in the tank for one party, downplaying or suppressing news that might make trouble for that party, inventing false stories about the candidates nominated by the other party, managing the news, manipulating the public, promoting in the party not favored the nomination of a clown, protecting the utterly corrupt nominee of the other party from scrutiny…

    We live, moreover, in a world of rampant prosecutorial indiscretion — where a Clinton, guilty of something that would have put anyone else in jail, gets off without an indictment and a Bob McDonnell, who has done nothing illegal, is prosecuted to the hilt. We live in a world in which colleges and universities are pressed to use kangaroo-court procedures in adjudicating the love-life of randy undergraduates and in which only the man can be held responsible for the tomfoolery that both are engaged in.

    Need I go on? If Trump is elected President, this is apt to end. The man has been burned. This campaign has been an education for him. If Hillary is elected President, this will not only go on. It will deepen. That is a certainty.

    As for Hillary herself, what should I say. She worked for the investigation that nailed Richard Nixon, and she was fired for lying. She put her cronies from Arkansas in charge of the White House Travel Office, driving out nonpartisan folks who had been serving everyone well for thirty years, and to cover her indecent behavior, she sicced the FBI on these hapless folks. At her behest, the head of the office was tried for malfeasance and, of course, ruined financially — though he was found not guilty. Think about what she did: she destroyed the lives of ordinary, innocent folk for her own convenience.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  3. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/4/2016 @ 12:31 pm

    Trump has not yet built a legion of tax-eating parasites eager to do his bidding for a tiny amount of power over other.

    He hasn’t built an organization.

    An already existing organization has recruited him.

    Sammy Finkelman (6d2ca9)

  4. Trump has promised to triple the number of workers represented by that union.

    Sammy Finkelman (6d2ca9)

  5. What is so pathetic to me is these grownups, these supposed adults, who will pay any amount of money just to meet other pathetic people because they’re famous.

    I can understand the graft, but the fan crushes? Ick.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  6. Jonah Goldberg of National Review had the same thought I had:

    Time and again we see from the Podesta e-mails that John Podesta and Robby Mook — the campaign chairman and campaign manager, respectively — were on the outside of the true inner circle…

    ALL the people John Podesta was correspoding with, Jennifer Palmieri and Neera Tanden too.

    This from the Goldberg File today, half an hour ago.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)


    •I think the most interesting item in everything that has come to light has to do with Ms. Abedin’s employment history. It seems that at the same time she was

    — An employee of the U.S. Department of State,

    — On the payroll of the Clinton Foundation, and

    — Had a business relationship Teneo – the consultancy formed by Bill Clinton’s close aide, Doug Band.

    •Suggesting the level of Abedin’s support and loyalty to the Clintons, in a weekend New York Times story, reporters Amy Chozick and Mark Landler wrote:

    At a [State Department] staff meeting in early 2009, she was going through a list of requests from “the president.” When others in the room looked at her in puzzlement, Ms. Abedin clarified: “Not President Obama. Our president: Bill Clinton.”

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  8. A sad fact, as Peggy Noonan has noted, is that we’re being patronized by our inferiors.

    Colonel Haiku (ede614)


    Paul alleged that the President broke his promise and stole his business partner, causing his business to crumble and, further, that his contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign were falsely reported to the Federal Election Commission.[1] Besides the Clintons, three other individuals who were involved in fundraising for the gala, were named as defendants in the suit.[2]

    In April 2006, the judge in the case dismissed all causes of action as to Hillary Clinton[2] for lack of evidence[2] and due to a California law that broadly protects political activities.[3] Paul then filed an appeal of the decision. A hearing was held on September 7, 2007,[3] and on October 16, 2007, the appeal was denied by California’s Second District Court of Appeal, which upheld the lower court’s opinion and said that Hillary Clinton could recoup her legal costs.[4] After the ruling, Paul said he would consider a further appeal to the Supreme Court of California.[4] Most but not all of the causes of action against President Clinton had been dismissed on procedural grounds.[3] (April 10, 2006)

    In his ruling Friday, Judge Munoz complained that Paul’s legal team “inundated this court” with photos of Paul with the Clintons, President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, and others.

    Paul “has failed to direct this court to any matters indicating Mrs. Clinton made any promises to him,” the judge wrote. “The most he can show is that promises were made by other people and those promises were never performed. Even assuming plaintiff can show the promises were with the intent not to perform, there is nothing to indicate Hillary Clinton was aware that the promises were not made in good faith.”

    Mrs. Clinton sought dismissal of the case under a California law that allows lawsuits involving protected First Amendment activities to be thrown out at a preliminary stage.

    Attorneys from a conservative group representing Paul, the United States Justice Foundation, asked that they be permitted to take Mrs. Clinton’s deposition before she was dismissed, but Judge Munoz refused….

    A longtime personal attorney to the Clintons, David Kendall, attended Friday’s hearing and told the judge that many of Paul’s claims were untrue “whoppers.” Mr. Kendall declined to comment for this article.

    In a declaration filed with the court last week, Mrs. Clinton said she remembered Paul from the gala, but did not recall any business proposals. “I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton, and I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred,” she wrote.

    The star-studded gala in the Los Angeles hills delivered more than $1 million to committees backing Mrs. Clinton’s Senate bid, but the event came at the price of a nasty and protracted hangover for the first lady and her aides. Days after the dinner and concert, the Washington Post reported that Paul had three criminal convictions on fraud and drug charges years earlier.

    Paul’s publicly traded company soon ran into financial trouble and he departed for Brazil. He was indicted for stock fraud and spent more than two years in a dungeon-like Brazilian prison before being extradited to America, where he pleaded guilty to a securities charge last year. He is awaiting sentencing.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  10. @Sammy:Trump has promised to triple the number of workers represented by that union.

    Trump might bring in a lot of bums, but they’ll be different bums, fewer bums, and not beholden to the Clintons. By all means make Trump a one-term President and throw his bums out after he throws out the Clintons’.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)


    In March 2005, Paul had a falling out with his advocates at Judicial Watch. He accused them of using his name to raise more than $15 million from people who disliked the Clintons, while doing little to advance his case. He announced his plan to replace them with a “dream team” of Republican lawyers,[28] and in February 2007, he filed suit against them, saying that they had taken advantage of him and that he was “not a big fan of their behavior”.[29]

    Regardless, Paul’s claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser,[30] though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having under-reported the cost of the party.[31] Paul’s suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton was rejected,[32] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[33] Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for “looting”[34] his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been “perfectly legal”, and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.[30]

    Finding no luck in the courts, in 2007 Paul promoted a thirteen and a half minute video titled “Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v. Clinton,” seeking to expose Senator Clinton. Her office responded “Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee.”[

    In January 2008, he re-filed his complaint with the FEC.[36] Paul’s suit against former President Clinton remains, as of December 2007, outstanding.[needs update] He is seeking $41.9 million in damages.[37]…

    …..In August 2004, the SEC formally filed its complaint against Paul for the manipulation of Stan Lee Media’s stock in violation of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5.[40] Paul pleaded guilty to the securities fraud charge….

    ….In July 2009, Paul accepted a plea bargain [61] and was sentenced to ten years in prison,[62] and ordered to pay over $11 million in restitution to Merrill Lynch and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg.[46] He self-surrendered on September 30, 2009, but subsequently tried to have the plea bargain annulled, claiming that the judge coerced him into agreeing to the deal.[61] In March 2011, the courts rejected this attempt,[61] and Paul continued to serve his 10-year imprisonment term as inmate number 78802-012.[46] He was imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna in Anthony, Texas, until he was paroled on December 24, 2014.[63]

    And I still don’t knoe exactly what he alleged. If he was promised something in exchange for helping a campaign, that promise is not enforceable and not a contract. Courts seem to ahve ruled that anyway. Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t do the promising.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  12. What’s going to happen to the FBI if Clinton is elected–to anyone not already a creature of hers?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  13. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/4/2016 @ 1:43 pm

    Trump might bring in a lot of bums, but they’ll be different bums, fewer bums, and not beholden to the Clintons. By all means make Trump a one-term President and throw his bums out after he throws out the Clintons’.

    These would be protected by Civil Service rules and a union contract, although I suppose if the staff was rediced some could be let go. Their superiors at DHS could be thrown out.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  14. Mr. Trump’s gonna rock the whole casbah

    he’s gonna do it to where it becomes a new american tradition

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  15. @Sammy: Paul had a falling out with his advocates at Judicial Watch.

    Thank God for Judicial Watch. They are the only reason anyone outside of the government learned about that email server. If it had not been for that lucky break Clinton would be walking away with this thing.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  16. 12. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/4/2016 @ 1:49 pm

    What’s going to happen to the FBI if Clinton is elected–to anyone not already a creature of hers?

    Maybe the same thing that happened to the Director of the FBI in 1993, and others.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  17. @Sammy:Their superiors at DHS could be thrown out.

    You got that right. Same as any other Federal organization. You can’t do much more than clean out the top couple of layers.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  18. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/4/2016 @ 1:51 pm

    They [Judicial Watch] are the only reason anyone outside of the government learned about that email server.

    tehy had a lawsuit, and got some things later from Huma Abedin, but the reason we foiund out about taht server was the creation of House Committee to investigate Bengazi. (there have been several different indepedndent proceedings brought by different groups. )

    The try Gowdy committee discovered other people had e-mail FROM Hillary, but no e-mail was produced FROM her account. When they searched for emails from or to her, none were found (but as I said, some turned up in searches of other people’s email archives)

    The State Department attempted to hide the problem, and got e-mails (well printouts of emails) from her. And only then did they tell the committee that she had not had a e-mail account.

    If it had not been for that lucky break Clinton would be walking away with this thing.

    It’s the House Benghazi Committee that discovered it because they subpoeaned lots of people for anything having to do with Benghazi and Libya in 2011 and 2012

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  19. peter paul would have to struggle to get the near beer, now the folks in that world magazine, which are like the middlemen in casino royale, the al rashid family which is bankrolling patrick murphy through straw donors, at least one ukrainian oligarch, like I say it’s the board of spectre or quantum,

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. then there are other folks like laura silsby, like the guest villains on burn notice, this is all part of the wikileaks dump,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. I got this from the WaPo editorial board by way of Real Clear Politics. The author lectures us with no hint of self-awareness that “history will remember” Republicans who failed to denounce Trump. Here is a the quote:

    Historians may find themselves most mystified by the politicians who refused to say anything. Sen. Patrick J. Toomey is running for reelection in Pennsylvania. He is asking voters for their trust. Yet he will not tell them for whom he will vote in the presidential election. Apparently he believes, as Mr. Heck insisted last week, that his vote is a “personal decision.”

    While I can respect Democrats who express some shame over Hillary’s corruption, but vote for her policies, it floors me how so many Democrats think they are in position to lecture us about the character of our candidate.

    Tony (ff2fe4)

  22. gerson is a fool, nay a knave many times over, toomey is relying on the giffords to vouch for him,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. lot of poopers been doing character assassination on Mr. Trump

    but the truth is he’s a good person and he’s won the hearts and he’s won the minds

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  24. I’m under few illusions pikachu, including that there will be much accountability for any of this,

    narciso (d1f714)

  25. now did they do this for the race against allen west one wonders,

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. Teh Democrats just want to try to keep their criminal activities portrayed as respectable by the colluding media and chop it up on teh down low.

    Colonel Haiku (ede614)

  27. while the gulen squirrel has been released,

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. I’m just hoping that -IF Trump is somehow elected- the combined forces of the MFMSM, The Democrat-Progressive Party, and The Republican-Democrat Party, can manage to keep him from straying too far from the straight-and-narrow.

    God knows the above combined forces have abandoned all pretense of reining-in ANYONE surnamed Clinton.

    Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah (34aacf)

  29. 22. Tony (ff2fe4) — 11/4/2016 @ 2:19 pm

    While I can respect Democrats who express some shame over Hillary’s corruption, but vote for her policies,

    By Democrats do you mean ordinary people , i.e.. voters, or do you mean politicians.

    If you mean any kinf of elected officials, are there any? New Yor State Assemblyman Dov Hikind doesn’t count -he didn’t even endosrse her.

    floors me how so many Democrats think they are in position to lecture us about the character of our candidate.

    That’s part of the spin, which goes that, at worst, well, she’s a politicians of average ethics and doesn’t tell lie anywhere near as bad as Trump. It comes mainly from newspaper writers, because elected Democrats won’t acknowledge any kind of flaws in her.

    The Republican Parrty, meanwhile, is divided. Quite a number of Republicans find fault with their nominee, even if they endorse him, and a good numer don’t even do that. That indicates the Republican Party is not as centrally controlled as the Democratic Party.

    Another indication of that was the number of candidates running for each party’s nomination.

    Sammy Finkelman (6d2ca9)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3346 secs.