|
Banned
|
I'll give you credit for trying, ngdawg, but I am not persuaded, so far, because I found this stuff that kind of dilutes your evidence:
Hillary Clinton's accuser has made no progress in court and is known to be a man of very little reputation and reliability:
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...isingsuit.html
By Greg Risling
ASSOCIATED PRESS
4:59 p.m. October 16, 2007
LOS ANGELES – An appellate court on Tuesday denied a motion to reinstate Sen. Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a lawsuit that claims she, former President Clinton and others induced a former supporter to finance a 2000 fundraising gala.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to remove the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate from a lawsuit filed by Peter Paul. The three-judge panel also said Clinton can recoup legal costs.
http://www.nysun.com/article/48250
Former Donor To Clinton Sues Judicial Watch
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 8, 2007
A donor who has dogged Senator Clinton over misreporting of contributions to her 2000 campaign, Peter Paul, filed a federal lawsuit yesterday accusing a conservative group that once backed his legal crusade of abandoning him and improperly seeking to raise funds off of his case.
Paul's suit alleges that Judicial Watch backed out of a 2001 agreement to defend him against criminal securities fraud charges and to pursue a civil case against President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and others for swindling him. Paul also accuses Judicial Watch's president, Thomas Fitton, who is not an attorney, of practicing law without a license.....
.....An attorney for Judicial Watch, Richard Driscoll, dismissed Paul's assertions. "Mr. Paul is an admitted felon, I think four times now, and we believe his claims are baseless," he said. "I can categorically state that Tom Fitton has never claimed to be a lawyer.".....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/ny...erland&emc=rss
Kennedy Relative Tied to Fund-Raising Case
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: April 23, 2005
....Mr. Reggie's sister, Victoria, is married to Senator Kennedy. And his father, Edmund, was an influential municipal judge in Crowley, La., who was a friend of former President John F. Kennedy, as well as a close adviser to former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, who served four terms in office before being sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for extortion in 2001.
News that Senator Kennedy's brother-in-law has been secretly working with federal authorities in the investigation of Mrs. Clinton's former fund-raising director provides a strange new twist in a case that already stands out for its unlikely cast of characters.
At the center of the fund-raising inquiry is Peter Paul, a well-connected figure with a criminal past who says he helped organize the fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign to win former President Clinton's support for a business venture.
The fund-raiser, a Hollywood gala held in August 2000, drew some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry and raised more than $1 million for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign in New York. But in the months after the event, Mr. Paul - whose record includes pleading guilty to possessing cocaine and attempting to defraud Fidel Castro's government out of millions of dollars in 1979 - turned bitterly on the Clintons.
He accused the Clinton campaign of falsely reporting that the August 2000 gala cost far less than the nearly $2 million he claims to have spent to organize the event. In January of this year, federal authorities produced an indictment charging that Mr. Rosen had underreported the cost of the affair.
The indictment was largely based on the claims of Mr. Paul, who has been cooperating with prosecutors, according to people involved in the case. The indictment accuses Mr. Rosen of falsely reporting that the August 2000 gala cost $401,419.
Prosecutors are apparently working under the theory that underreporting the cost of the affair would have freed up additional dollars to spend on the campaign itself, under a complicated series of campaign-finance formulas governing such expenditures.
But people involved in Mrs. Clinton's 2000 campaign say that underreporting would not have produced any financial benefit.
Federal prosecutors have turned over to Mr. Rosen's lawyers a transcript of the taped conversation between Mr. Reggie and Mr. Rosen, because Mr. Reggie apparently will be called as a prosecution witness at Mr. Rosen's coming trial, according to people involved in the case.
In the tapes, Mr. Reggie apparently manages to steer the conversation with Mr. Rosen in the direction of a discussion about the production costs of the 2000 fund-raising event, according to one person involved in the case.
Mr. Rosen, in turn, apparently told Mr. Reggie of his frustration at having had to deal with Mr. Paul and described Mr. Paul as an unreliable character, according to people involved in the case.
Paul Sandler, Mr. Rosen's lawyer, declined to comment for this article. Neither Mr. Reggie's lawyer nor a spokesman of the Justice Department responded to phone messages seeking comment.
Mr. Reggie has apparently been cooperating with federal authorities since 2002, when he taped the conversation he had with Mr. Rosen, according to one person involved in the case......
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us...yt&oref=slogin
Fund-Raiser Reappears as Critic
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: October 31, 2007
...THE HISTORY: Mr. Paul has a criminal past that includes a guilty plea for cocaine possession and trying to defraud the Cuban government of millions of dollars in 1979. He has been seeking attention for his claims against the Clintons, and he sued Mrs. Clinton in California.
He says he organized the fund-raiser to win Mr. Clinton’s support on a business venture that he was undertaking. But after disclosures of his criminal past surfaced, the Clintons disavowed their relationship with him and said they would not accept his contributions.
Shortly after, he began accusing Mrs. Clinton’s campaign staff of failing to disclose that he had spent nearly $2 million on the event, money that should have been reported as a campaign contribution, and that Mrs. Clinton knew all the details of the event.
In early 2005, based largely on Mr. Paul’s statements, federal prosecutors charged David Rosen, finance director of the Senate campaign, with lying about the cost of the event to the Federal Elections Commission.
Mr. Rosen was acquitted in 2005. Mrs. Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing, though the campaign agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty for underreporting the cost.
This month, a California appeals court upheld a lower court order and refused to reinstate Mrs. Clinton as a defendant in Mr. Paul’s suit.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the campaign, Phil Singer, said in a statement: “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.”
The video is circulating, nonetheless, in the midst of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and taps into criticism over the years about the Clintons’ fund-raising associations.....
|
There is no evidence that the vote anywhere in November, 1960, was fixed in JFK's favor. There is nothing in Giancana or Sinatra's FBI files to support the claims in your posted excerpts:
http://foia.fbi.gov/giancana/giancana1.pdf
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/sinatra.htm
Quote:
http://chicagoist.com/2006/03/21/uic...jfk_theory.php
March 21, 2006
UIC Professor Debunks Chicago JFK Theory
....Why the history lesson? Well, Chicagoist loves a good JFK assassination theory, so we perked up when we saw the Sun-Times reporting that UIC finance professor John Binder recently analyzed vote totals from in the 1960 general election in city wards where Giancana supposedly had clout to see if the mob really did swing the election. And he found that the mob-controlled areas in the city, as well as Cicero and Chicago Heights, voted no differently than others. In fact, Democratic vote totals remained about the same in those wards for Kennedy in 1960 as they were for Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Binder also disputes the notion that Giancana helped Kennedy win the state of West Virginia, and that the mob influenced citywide votes via union support.
So if JFK didn't owe Giancana any favors for helping him win Illinois, would Bobby's crusade against the mob still have angered them enough to order a hit on the President? Maybe. But if not, conspiracy nuts always have a host of other favorite suspects, including anti-Castro Cubans, some guy named Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviets, Texas oilmen, and Lyndon Johnson himself. The parlor game never ends no matter how bizarre the idea. But if Professor Binder is right, you can take some of the major Chicago ties out of the equation.
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/...0/11/10/nixon/
The fallacy of Nixon's graceful exit
In 1960, the GOP candidate fought hard behind the scenes to make sure the election wasn't stolen from him -- just as Al Gore should do.
By Gerald Posner
Nov 10, 2000 | One of the most oft-repeated myths in the aftermath of the current presidential election disputes is the claim that Vice President Al Gore should behave more like Richard Nixon, who is cited frequently for having graciously decided not to pursue legal remedies in response to possible voter fraud that might have cost him the 1960 election with John Kennedy. But the notion that Nixon graciously exited is just false.
The 1960 race was unquestionably close. Some states -- like California -- initially fell into Kennedy's electoral count, but were reversed almost two weeks later after absentee ballots were counted. But the core questions about the election centered on rumors of fraud, primarily in Illinois, where Democratic Mayor Richard Daley's powerful political machine controlled voter-heavy Chicago, and Texas, where vice presidential candidate Lyndon Johnson was a senator. Rumors of impropriety existed before the election. After the election, when Illinois went for Kennedy by fewer than 9,000 votes, and Texas by just over 40,000, Republicans cried foul.....
.....A conservative journalist and close Nixon friend, Earl Mazo, of the New York Herald Tribune, launched a press frenzy over possible voter fraud. (He was later Nixon's official biographer.) And not only did Republican senators like Thruston Morton ask for recounts in 11 states just three days after the election, but Nixon aides Bob Finch and Len Hall personally did field checks of votes in almost a dozen states.
The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.
In Illinois, for instance, the final recount showed that Nixon's votes had been undercounted by 943 -- yet, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, it turned out that Nixon's vote had been overcounted. (Contrast this with Gore, whose vote total steadily climbed during the Florida recount.) Unhappy with those results, Republicans went to federal court, where their case was dismissed. They then appealed to the State Board of Elections, which also rejected their claims. It was not until Dec. 19 -- over a month after the election -- that the national Republican Party backed off its Illinois claims.
Similar results, and extended fights, took place in Texas and New Jersey among other states. In Hawaii, Republican efforts had the unintended result of reversing the state's electoral votes from Nixon to Kennedy.
Although Republicans continued to insist that Illinois and Texas had somehow figured out a way to cheat and still pass a recount, they never produced hard evidence of widespread impropriety. Yet, that was certainly not for lack of trying. For over a month, the Republican efforts were aggressive and widespread. That Nixon was clever enough to allow his aides and political friends to do the work on his behalf -- while officially seeming to remove himself from the fray -- should not let Americans have amnesia about what really happened in the wake of the 1960 vote.
If the current rallying cry of Republicans is that Al Gore should behave like Richard Nixon did in 1960, that is precisely what he is doing -- strongly making every effort to ensure that the final vote was fair and correct.
|
|