NationStates Jolt Archive

Before we start, here's an excerpt from Hillary's official sworn testimony on this matter:

"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," Clinton said in the declaration.

"I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred," she added.

Interestingly, on the tape the former first lady and leading Democratic presidential contender is heard speaking in 2000 with Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, comic book icon Stan Lee, and director Aaron Tonkin about a massive fundraising event for her 2000 Senate race. Paul spent about $2 million of his own money to produce the event but later had a fallout with the Clintons.

If she helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to Clinton's Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee called New York Senate 2000. If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be 10 times the legal limit of $2,000. Knowingly soliciting a contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The conversation appears to show Clinton actively helping to plan the event. The suit alleges that she violated federal campaign finance laws by directly soliciting a contribution from Paul.

"And you know, Aaron, I'm so grateful because I know how hard you've worked on it because it's your constant effort and outreach. You know, I talked with [celebrity singer] Cher and she was just great. Said she was really so excited. And I hadn't talked to her so you must have done a really good job selling it to her.

The evidence ('http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGW-fZBjywU')

Burn her!!!

I must be a fucking psychic because just from the title and poster I knew this thread was going to be about a Democratic Congressman without even previewing it.


It's getting old, man, old.

You've done it! You've solved the Crime of the Century! Have a peanut butter cup. :)

im sure that if laws have been broken mrs clinton will have to face the authorities over it.

if not, it will go nowhere.

when she is indicted i'll get all righteously indignant over her flouting of the law.

I must be a fucking psychic because just from the title and poster I knew this thread was going to be about a Democratic Congressman without even previewing it.


It's getting old, man, old.

Senator. I'm sure if it was a video of Bush saying the same things, you would be all over it.

I must be a fucking psychic because just from the title and poster I knew this thread was going to be about a Democratic Congressman without even previewing it.


It's getting old, man, old.

*hands you some Depends undergarments* :)

Senator. I'm sure if it was a video of Bush saying the same things, you would be all over it.

ANd you wouldn't. ;)

*grins and take a sip of beer* This is going to be interesting.

Considering that the Republican-run government has been investigating this very case since almost the day Clinton took office as a Senator, if they haven't turned up anything worthwhile by now, I doubt they ever will.

Before we start, here's an excerpt from Hillary's official sworn testimony on this matter:



Interestingly, on the tape the former first lady and leading Democratic presidential contender is heard speaking in 2000 with Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, comic book icon Stan Lee, and director Aaron Tonkin about a massive fundraising event for her 2000 Senate race. Paul spent about $2 million of his own money to produce the event but later had a fallout with the Clintons.

If she helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to Clinton's Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee called New York Senate 2000. If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be 10 times the legal limit of $2,000. Knowingly soliciting a contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The conversation appears to show Clinton actively helping to plan the event. The suit alleges that she violated federal campaign finance laws by directly soliciting a contribution from Paul.



The evidence ('http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGW-fZBjywU')

she is a disgusting hypocrite.
she is just a left version of bush.
same basic lies and bullshit they all spew out...i hope her and bush get married,match made in heaven.
plus she has cankles...what a full of shit bitch

Before we start, here's an excerpt from Hillary's official sworn testimony on this matter:



Interestingly, on the tape the former first lady and leading Democratic presidential contender is heard speaking in 2000 with Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, comic book icon Stan Lee, and director Aaron Tonkin about a massive fundraising event for her 2000 Senate race. Paul spent about $2 million of his own money to produce the event but later had a fallout with the Clintons.

If she helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to Clinton's Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee called New York Senate 2000. If that is the case, the donation from Paul would be 10 times the legal limit of $2,000. Knowingly soliciting a contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The conversation appears to show Clinton actively helping to plan the event. The suit alleges that she violated federal campaign finance laws by directly soliciting a contribution from Paul.



The evidence ('http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGW-fZBjywU')


Note the phrase "have no recollection" good enough for ol' Raygun.

plus she has cankles...what a full of shit bitchThis comment seems to be representative of your general level of analysis.

For comparison purposes, I transcribed the audio from that clip linked in the OP:

Woman on the Phone: No, I-

Stan Lee: Don't ask, just accept the thanks.

*laughter*

Woman on the phone: That's fabulous, that will be so terrific. Well, you can let me know if there's anything I need to do and I know you and Kelly(?) talk all the time, so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need, but I just wanted to call and personally thank all of you. I'm glad you're all together so that I could tell you how much this means to me, and it's gonna mean a lot to the President too.

Stan Lee: Well, that is just so nice, and believe me your call means a lot to us.

Here is what the OP quoted:

"And you know, Aaron, I'm so grateful because I know how hard you've worked on it because it's your constant effort and outreach. You know, I talked with [celebrity singer] Cher and she was just great. Said she was really so excited. And I hadn't talked to her so you must have done a really good job selling it to her.

Odd how that doesn't match up. Do you have another source for that quote or is this clip just the wrong one?

Odd how that doesn't match up. Do you have another source for that quote or is this clip just the wrong one?
Not sure what he screwed up, but it's obvious that this (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200706/POL20070622e.html) is his source. Basically web news' version of Fox.

Senator. I'm sure if it was a video of Bush saying the same things, you would be all over it.

Senate is in the Congress, genius. And Bush and Co. pull shit like this all the time, it is equally as boring.
And you never get anything right if you are going to spend so much time trying to demonize Clinton, at least try and get some actual god damn facts in there somewhere.

Senate is in the Congress, genius. And Bush and Co. pull shit like this all the time, it is equally as boring.
And you never get anything right if you are going to spend so much time trying to demonize Clinton, at least try and get some actual god damn facts in there somewhere.

Sure, a video of her committing a felony is "not facts" in your estimation.

Sure, a video of her committing a felony is "not facts" in your estimation.

Maybe you should go over page 1.

Sure, a video of her committing a felony is "not facts" in your estimation.No, a video of her speaking to people contains lots of facts. Whether or not those facts amount to a felony is largely a question of interpretation.

Face it: this law suit is such a long shot that the mainstream media are not even bothering to pick it up. Not even Fox News, as far as I can tell. That should tell you something.

Not sure what he screwed up, but it's obvious that this (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200706/POL20070622e.html) is his source. Basically web news' version of Fox.

Ah, thanks. That article clears a few thing up, and it has a link to the full video.

From the video, it looks like Clinton was helping to organize the event in question, but I'm a little confused as to the legal issues involved. How would aiding the organization of an event constitute a direct donation under campaign finance law? Wouldn't the movement of the money be much more pertinent and easier to establish?

Ah, thanks. That article clears a few thing up, and it has a link to the full video.

From the video, it looks like Clinton was helping to organize the event in question, but I'm a little confused as to the legal issues involved. How would aiding the organization of an event constitute a direct donation under campaign finance law? Wouldn't the movement of the money be much more pertinent and easier to establish?There are a lot of issues here. Ironically, this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155425,00.html) from Fox News offers a surprisingly balanced and thorough account of the affair from Day One.

No, a video of her speaking to people contains lots of facts. Whether or not those facts amount to a felony is largely a question of interpretation.

Face it: this law suit is such a long shot that the mainstream media are not even bothering to pick it up. Not even Fox News, as far as I can tell. That should tell you something.

Here's how much of a non-story it is. Drudge isn't even running with it, at least not at the moment. When Drudge doesn't run an anti-Hillary piece, you know it's suspect.

There are a lot of issues here. Ironically, this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155425,00.html) from Fox News offers a surprisingly balanced and thorough account of the affair from Day One.

I see, thanks. Definitely not a strong case, especially if it's been ongoing since 2005 with no real results.

Well, I see the usual Remote Kimchi thread in action:

RK posts a paranoid deluded bitter tinfoilhat conspiracy rant against a democrat;
RK gets his ass handed to him before the first page is filled;
Rk suddenly 'decides' he has important real-life duties to attend to and goes off-line.


every time.
every single time.

Have to give him a little credit for his perseverance I s'pose.

Wait, now-I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but what was that video supposed to be showing me?

She called up a bunch of people that were throwing some shindig, and that constitutes helping organize it? Is it only legal if it's a surprise party? I don't know, I don't see where she's directly involved except to thank people that were throwing her something.

I read the article someone linked to Fox, and the whole thread, and I'm still lost as to what that video was supposed to show or how it showed it.

Not sure what he screwed up, but it's obvious that this (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200706/POL20070622e.html) is his source. Basically web news' version of Fox.

Oh, and also-thanks for finding the hand up RO's butt that he constantly and conveniently fails to acknowledge.

Wait, now-I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but what was that video supposed to be showing me?

She called up a bunch of people that were throwing some shindig, and that constitutes helping organize it? Is it only legal if it's a surprise party? I don't know, I don't see where she's directly involved except to thank people that were throwing her something.
I even fail to see how the posted quote of hers proves that she was "helping plan it" and I assume that is the most damning of them all.

Oh, and also-thanks for finding the hand up RO's butt that he constantly and conveniently fails to acknowledge.

You know, I've searched around for his stuff before, but I never imagined he sunk to the levels of CNS News. I don't think even Worldnet Daily considers them credible.

For those who are wondering, this is the best I can do to sort out this twisted logic:

1) The real crime was not that Hillary may have been involved in planning the event, but that the donations gathered at the event were ultimately underreported by over $500,000 dollars.
2) One of the Clintons' aides has since been indicted for the underreporting.

The allegation here is really that this tape "proves" that Clinton was "involved" with the event, concluding in a radical leap that because she made a few phone calls she also knew every detail of the event, including how much money was raised after the fact and how much money was reported--which is obviously ridiculous.

It's like Kimchi's trying to create the impossible: Sympathy and Pity Votes for Hillary Clinton.

For those who are wondering, this is the best I can do to sort out this twisted logic:

1) The real crime was not that Hillary may have been involved in planning the event, but that the donations gathered at the event were ultimately underreported by over $500,000 dollars.
2) One of the Clintons' aides has since been indicted for the underreporting.

The allegation here is really that this tape "proves" that Clinton was "involved" with the event, concluding in a radical leap that because she made a few phone calls she also knew every detail of the event, including how much money was raised after the fact and how much money was reported--which is obviously ridiculous.

There goes my hope that it made at least a little more sense...

But of course, with this-
The site is being created by the same technical producers behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Web campaign that helped defeat 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
(from the FOX article) I'm sure we can expect some serious molehill to mountain action.

It's like Kimchi's trying to create the impossible: Sympathy and Pity Votes for Hillary Clinton.

We should let him waste his energy on Hilary while real Democratic candidates move forward.

We should let him waste his energy on Hilary while real Democratic candidates move forward.

Plus it might be an amusing little sport to see if he can top Forrest "Eutrusca" Horn's Cindy Sheehan Fetish for the record of Most Lifeless Fixation on an Irrelevant Attention Whore.

:D

Plus it might be an amusing little sport to see if he can top Forrest "Eutrusca" Horn's Cindy Sheehan Fetish for the record of Most Lifeless Fixation on an Irrelevant Attention Whore.

:D
Dude, you have to give him an achievable goal...

Dude, you have to give him an achievable goal...

Busheviks can be quite determined and energetic when confronted with perceived enemies. Like dumping blood in shark-infested waters or taking kindergarteners to Neverland Ranch.

This thread, like so many by RO, is made of fail.

So she committed a little election fraud. Hasn't she been punished enough?

But seriously, even though this seems like ground for an investigation...DC-Style! What isn't? Aren't there more important things to be focusing on? Like the pool's across America and around the world infested with AIDS and stingrays.

Sure, a video of her committing a felony is "not facts" in your estimation.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Just this once. At least try to go through the motions.

If you are going to claim that video shows Senator Clinton committing a felony, be prepared to back that up.

What felony or felonies? What are the elements of those crimes?

What exactly on the tape shows Senator Clinton committed all the elements of a crime?

To me, it sounds like a casual conversation where Senator Clinton thanks those that have organized a fundraiser for her. Absolutely nothing on the tape shows that Ms. Clinton was directly organizing the event.

For comparison purposes, I transcribed the audio from that clip linked in the OP:



Here is what the OP quoted:



Odd how that doesn't match up. Do you have another source for that quote or is this clip just the wrong one?

Curious isn't it. The supposed smoking gun doesn't say what it allegedly says.

Even more bizarre, neither version of the dialogue incriminates Senator Clinton.

For comparison purposes, I transcribed the audio from that clip linked in the OP: (xxx)
Here is what the OP quoted: (yyy)
Odd how that doesn't match up.

Typical neocon faux.

Real odd thing: how the Sup.Court stopped the investigations about the 2000 presidential elections... expecially that results in a State whose Governor had a brother running for POTUS...:rolleyes:

If you are going to claim that video shows Senator Clinton committing a felony, be prepared to back that up.

What felony or felonies? What are the elements of those crimes?

What exactly on the tape shows Senator Clinton committed all the elements of a crime?


To shut up the OP, we could send the whole thread to Mrs.Rodham-Clinton's offices... on a second thought, I wouldn't do that to poor, old, jolty Jolt.

Plus it might be an amusing little sport to see if he can top Forrest "Eutrusca" Horn's Cindy Sheehan Fetish for the record of Most Lifeless Fixation on an Irrelevant Attention Whore.

:D

That's asking too much! Have pity!

Ah...Eutrusca. Those were the days.

That's asking too much! Have pity!

Ah...Eutrusca. Those were the days.

If he were still here this thread would be 18 pages long already and we'd all have been insulted with the patented "I just flamed you but it's okay because I used a smiley" posts.

*grins and take a sip of beer* This is going to be interesting.

No,actually, its not going to be slightly interesting.

Dont waste a beer-stick to the Postum on this one.