WingColors

Yes, this could be "wow", but you need to take it 100% with a grain of salt. Like with many things, seeing one side of a story and swallowing it whole is a dangerous game.

For example, maybe I'm missing something, but how does not getting a $5 million investment make a $300 million company collapse? How does a presidential candidate (under the microscope) hide a $2 million campaign contribution? Furthermore, is it established that H. Clinton knew about the charges/Paul's past before she allowed him to put together the fundraiser? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

I'm not defending Clinton, simply stating that we shouldn't watch a one-sided piece of propaganda and assume that it's full of fact.

Honestly, I didn't watch all of it. From the very start, it seemed like a propagandistic piece, designed to make people go "Oh my GOD!"

And anyway - she's a politician. Of course she's dirty. Have any of us ever known of a politician who wasn't dirty?

Is there a non-YouTube link to the video?

I'm not connecting the dots...propaganda rarely does though.

A video by someone, a criminal for that matter, and now a known and bitter foe of the Clinton's - she isn't even part of the case any longer, so what?

Probably not that reliable - as propaganda goes this is familiarly sensationalist.

We have someone I consider a criminal in the White House now so I'm not surprised that there is potential for another one there in the future though.

I can't bother watching all of this. I wish people would bother making videos questioning why we have such a corrupt system to begin with, questioning why corporations can contribute and own campaigns - basically negating any chance power for the people of this country.

http://www.peterfpaul.com/

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

go here then

Holy Crap! You guys make me sick! Here you have letters and video and audio connecting Hillary and showing she is lying about this crime and you dismiss it without even watching the whole thing!

And anyway - she's a politician. Of course she's dirty. Have any of us ever known of a politician who wasn't dirty?

We have someone I consider a criminal in the White House now so I'm not surprised that there is potential for another one there in the future though.

I'm not defending Clinton, simply stating that we shouldn't watch a one-sided piece of propaganda and assume that it's full of fact.

You are all the first to jump on the bandwagon with the anti-Bush Propaganda shouting "IMPEACH BUSH" "FUCK BUSH" but the moment something like this comes out it's oh, you have to take it with a grain of salt, politicians are corrupt anyway, it's only propaganda. The fact that this is in the courts right now, and it is, means there is something to it. It's not just Peter Paul involved, Stan Lee is as well. You know what, this is pointless.

@shadeofgrey:

You are all the first to jump on the bandwagon with the anti-Bush Propaganda shouting "IMPEACH BUSH" "FUCK BUSH" but the moment something like this comes out it's oh, you have to take it with a grain of salt, politicians are corrupt anyway, it's only propaganda.

Say what, now? I didn't jump on the bandwagon of shouting "impeach Bush" or "fuck Bush!" based on propaganda. I instead based my views on the fact that he's rammed the country into the ground, burning up the huge surplus we had when he came into office, and has us embroiled in a war that can't be won, and won't be won. All under the bullshit context of "spreading democracy", no less. Or was it finding weapons of mass destruction? Or, well crap, I just can't remember what the hell we're doing in Iraq. Now I read that there's talk of invading Iran. Wonderful.

Here you have letters and video and audio connecting Hillary and showing she is lying about this crime and you dismiss it without even watching the whole thing!

I'm not dismissing anything. I would not in the least be surprised if she was lying about crimes, or anything else for that matter. She's a politician. Politicians lie. This isn't anything new.

You guys make me sick!

.

Love you too.

Oh, and that second link you provided is just another propagandistic "hey, let's make Hillary look bad" page. Not sure how that's a move up. It's also sponsored by - imagine this - the United States Justice Foundation which is, in their own words, a "conservative voice in the court." Hmm.. a conservative group sponsoring a site to provide the truth about a Clinton? Shocking!

Ok, I want to apologize, I had a rough night last night and I took it out on all of you, that was wrong of me, and immature. After all I did ask what you guys thought. So Erin, Josh, and Cooper, please forgive me, I was wrong to do that.

Anyway, I do see what you are saying about not trusting it straight up and it would be wise to do a little more research. I guess my main idea was just to think about it. Just like Moore's movies, I watch them to see what he has to say. Are Moore's movies propaganda? Yes, but I watch them because there are some truths hidden in there. Just like this movie here, is it all true? Probably not, but I am sure there are alot of facts in there as well. I am not going to go shout out "ARREST HILLARY!" But maybe it does need to be looked into. I mean there have been more than enough investigations into the Bush administration.

That was uncalled for. Making a blanket statement about "all of us" is not appropriate, especially when you have no idea what we individually stand for. And, as far as I know, I have never said "fuck Bush". But apology is accepted.

I don't jump on bandwagons. When Michael Moore makes a video, I take that with a grain of salt, as well. As I said, you can never watch a one-sided piece and assume that you have the facts. The point of making these videos is to convince someone, and the best way to do that is twist things in your favor. That's what that game's all about.

Propaganda or not, I don't need anything else to tell me not to vote for Hillary. I knew I wouldn't vote for her, back when she was running for Senate (because, come on, we all knew she wanted the presidency even then).

to Erin R --- Japanese business partner had already given the company $5 mil for their partnership in Asia. He promised another $5 mil in November 2000. Clinton's business advisor and agent, Jim Levin, used proprietary business information gained while vetting the company for Clinton. Levin would report back to Clinton on whether it was a valid and worthwhile proposal. Levin used the proprietary business information to steal SLM's main investor, Oto. We have the document, which was recorded with the Illinois Sec of State just six days after Hillary was elected. Levin convinced Oto he could do business with the president directly and cut out Peter Paul. Clinton, of course, was a silent partner. The dotcoms were crashing late in 2000. SLM was running out of cash. When the money from Oto was not forthcoming, do to the interference of Clinton's agent, the company ran out of cash and failed.

The FEC determined in Dec 2005 that the campaign deliberately failed to report $720K and had filed three false reports. We have proof that the fourth amended report is also a fraud. Additional evidence was obtained in April 2007 that had been withheld by a US Attorney until official investigations were concluded. It implicates Hillary directly in the solicitation of an illegal hard money contribution that turned out to be at least $1.2 mi.

to Josh -- yes, politics is a dirty game. This, however, is quite unique. It is the largest campaign finance fraud in history. The civil case, Paul v Clinton, will be heard in 2008. When discovery begins, I think some of you will be amazed with some of the testimony. The civil case for business fraud is going to ultimately reveal the crimes.

to Jark --- here is the google link - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

That unfinished and unedited trailer was for internal and media use. It was leaked four weeks ago on lucianne.com. Since then, it has had well over 2 million views. For all but a few days, it has been the number one viewed google video. For some reason, google does not have it on its TOP 100 list. It only appeared a few times at the top of the list, despite the statistics to show it was No. 1. We got the stats from yesterday that indicated it was No. 3 for yesterday. It appears nowhere on the google TOP 100. We would like to know why.

to cooper - you don't have to believe anything Peter Paul says. I have spent well over two years vetting and reading thousands of pages of documents. The documents and several hours of home video are going to tell the story.

We can agree on one thing --- no more Clintons or Bushes. Two families running the country for 28 years is not what the Founders envisioned, and it is not good for our republic.

to shadeofgray - this is not about Bush versus Clinton. It is about a crime and a coverup. I have worked hard to make an accurrate film. If someone can argue with the facts and prove a mistake, I am willing to correct the record.

A demand was made today of Andrew Grossman, Hillary's treasurer, to correct the fourth false FEC report. After the FEC fined the campaign for hiding $720K and told him to file a fourth amended report, he created another one that was "factually inaccurate." Among the problems is that it claims Stan Lee gave $225,000. Hillary knows that is false, and we have provided her with the evidence. We have Lee on tape in his deposition swearing under oath that he gave no money. Hillary has refused to direct her treasurer to file a correction.

Here is the major element of the conspiracy part. While official investigations were proceeding, a video tape was withheld by a US Attorney. It is a video of a conference call with Hillary's audio on the other end. Hillary's team has always maintained that the money paid for the fundraiser --- $1.2 million was certified by the FBI --- was a soft money contribution. They claim it was for a joint fundraiser. Until Peter Paul's counsel finally forced the return of his home video of July 17, 2000, they got away with that argument.

Things changed with the acquisiton of that withheld video. Hillary acknowledges the actions of her advance team leader, Kelly Craighead, who was also a White House employee at the time. Kelly was among those agents of Hillary directly soliciting Paul to pay for the event that was acknowledge to cost over $1 million. It was absolutely illegal for Craighead to have any role in the solicitation. On the tape, Hillary acknowledges being completely briefed by Kelly. Hillary offers her assistance and says that Kelly will convey what she needs. Hillary acknowledges that she solicited the Cher performance on a phone call with her. All of that activity makes what was done a hard money, in-kind donation. Anything above $2,000 was totally illegal.

For full disclosure, I am on the political right. We deliberately hired a writer and producer on the political left to be part of this film. We want the film to tell the facts of this very, very complicated story.

Peter Paul discovered, early in 2001, that two false FEC reports had been filed. They claimed the cost of "Event 39" to be $366,000. Paul filed his civil suit in June 2000. Hillary was served on July 11, 2001 through her counsel, David Kendall. Included were receipts, bank statements, and invoices documenting $1.6 mil spent by Paul. Paul's counsel held a press event at the National Press Club, and a messenger delivered a demand letter to Hillary's senate office. Even with the demand and the receipts, Hillary had her treasurer file a report on July 30 that only claimed $401,000. She knew that wasn't true.