"What Hillary Clinton And The Media Are Hiding From Voters"

By Kathy Miller

While Senator Clinton is on the campaign trail telling reporters that the use of her opponents' 'bitter' remarks could damage Senator Obama's chances to win the general election if he should win the nomination, a California superior judge will soon be setting a trial date for the historic civil landmark case in Paul vs. Clinton.

Apparently the Clintons believe that the word 'bitter' is far more damaging than testify under oath in a civil fraud trial.

For some reason, the media doesn't think that a historic trial to haul a former President and a Presidential candidate to court for fraud is newsworthy.

A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, just three days after the Pennsylvania primary.  California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz is expected to finally set a trial date after delayment back in February.  

Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up.  Discovery is expected to begin in May.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul.  But Paul's attorney Colette Wilson has stated there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

The complaint also asserts that Senator Clinton filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul.  But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

Senator Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant, but Munoz already has made it clear he won't accept any attempts to block Senator Clinton from serving as a material witness.  The judge told Clinton's lawyer David Kendall: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall."

Paul has outlined the entire case in a one hour documentary entitled, Hillary Uncensored, Banned by the Media.  Paul believes the Clintons have thwarted the media from exposing this story, and he has set up a website called PaulvClinton to expose and inform the public of the latest news and information himself in the trial. 

Perhaps voters should be 'bitter' that this story is not being reported by the mainstream media. 

You can sign up on the website PaulvClinton to receive e-mails of the news in the trial as it happens.

Note: Peter Paul has passed a lie detector's test to prove he is not lying about hiring Bill Clinton to be a rainmaker for his company.  Do you think Hillary or Bill Clinton would pass a lie dectector's test?

To verify this case: you can go to http: www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Choose Civil - then Case Summary - type in the Case Number BC304174